AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's an interesting article about Beto O'Rourke I read. Just simply based off of this opinion piece, the way he's described is the kind of candidate I would support. He even condemned protesters for making Ted Cruz leave a restaurant. He's in an area that I don't live, so I can't vote for him and haven't delved too much into his background. But, I do agree with many of his stances from what I have seen.

On the flipside, while I agree with nearly all of this candidate's issues, because he has shown a url=https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...dership-fund/joe-radinovich-running-law/]long history of legal issues[/url]. Granted, these are mostly driving/parking violations as well as unpaid court fines. But, IMO, there's a long history of failing to abide by even the most basic of laws, as well as having unpaid court fines go to collections. So, it does make me wonder if his integrity is what he claims to be.


FYI, both of these candidates are outside of my area and I cannot vote for either of them. But, I am using them as examples of why I may or may not vote for someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoleneBrody
@ForceTen To call it a long history is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think? One DWI and then arrested by UTEP police for sneaking under a fence. Neither resulting in convictions. Your last link didn’t work, I think this is what you were going for. I haven’t seen anything about parking tickets, it’s not a concern of mine anyway.

But yah, people aren’t perfect. He’s been completely transparent about it and I think that’s where his integrity shows. I can vote for him and will be at the polls early to do so! I don’t have high hopes, but getting spineless Raphael Cruz out of office would be quite a relief.
 
@Poison_Ivy21 thanks for the link. The link I messed up was this one which was about the other candidate I posted. This is the long history I was referring to. Again, most are driving and parking offenses. But, he's also failed to pay court fees which were turned over to collection agencies. Thus why i question the candidate's integrity.

For the record, I don't mind if a person has some prior legal issues. So long as they aren't of a violent nature, domestic abuse, sex trafficing or the like. As well as no embezzlement, etc. But, minor drug offenses, speeding tickets, etc. I don't think should prevent someone from running so long as they've met all the requirements of their legal obligations (court ordered such as jail time, fines, etc) and there isn't a history of said issues spanning years. Which it appears that O'Rourke is very candid and open about. Another reason why I would vote for him, in that he's been open about these issues since initially running for office years ago.
 
And I live in a predominately "Blue" state. The difference is that I'm much more of a centrist, and is why I have issues with extremes from both parties. I think they're both corrupt, and are self-serving. Thus, why I mentioned what I did about the finger pointing and shaming of the others. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Keith Ellison who is a high-ranking DNC official and running for state attorney general is being accused of physical abuse from his ex-girlfriend with medical records and supposedly a tape showing it. There are others who have come forward as well. But, this is not being talked about and is largely ignored by the DNC.
You see the hypocrisy? Yes, it's a Federal judicial appointment compared to a state elected position. But, again, they are both very high ranking positions and one holds a co-chair position within the party which is accusing the other of shameful events. Now, if the parties were reversed, you and many others here would probably feel differently. Why? Because of the "Balance of power" that people are concerned about when their party doesn't have majority rule. (I'll probably get a few negative rating for that. But, IDGAF.)
If it isn't clear, I am very much a centrist. I believe in personal liberties, and rights for EVERYONE. I believe that every citizen should have the same basic rights and protections regardless of their demographics. I believe that our Gov't is supposed to be neutral, and not politically aligned. Nor should there be loyalties to businesses, organizations (including non-profits), or rich and powerful people such as celebrities, millionaires, etc. I believe that anyone should be listened to and heard equally. Not the pandering that those self-serving individuals have who sit in Gov't chairs. Why is it nearly every Senator and Representative significantly increase their wealth when they are in that position? Also, why is it that they continue to get paid after they leave? Why are they above the law?

To many here, it may appear that I lean right. In some ways, I do. But, I am far more concerned about equalities of all and why I raise concerns and flags about the faults of both parties. Neither party has our best interest at heart. They are both corrupt, and there truly is little difference between the parties once you lift the curtain and see who's pulling the strings and levers. However, far too many fail to see this, and continue with the extreme polarization they do.

The issues with Ellison need to be called out, any reasonable person would agree with that. I'm not following his issues in detail because he's not in my state. But, if I were in his state, just on the optics he wouldn't get my vote and I honestly think he should remove himself from consideration and face whatever charges he has coming. I will be openly honest I'm concerned about elected people with questionable baggage getting elected, but at least in that case the ability to remove them from said role is much easier. Yes still a position of power/influence, but it is not comparable to a federal judge.

The ability to remove a sitting judge with a lifetime appointment at any level is stacked in a way that it while not impossible is very close to that in terms of what it would take for them to be forced out of office.

You say you're a centrist. I consider myself a moderate. I'm left leaning on Social Issues (health care, gay rights, women's contraceptive issues) I lean right on most Economic Issues (taxes, trade agreements,wage negotiations). The real toss up for me is in regards to Military Issues (spending/war powers and so forth). So as it stems with social issues or as you put it personal liberties those are issues that can and will be deeply affected if the balance keeps moving right of center. As I noted in my previous response I didn't have issues with Gorsich despite being right leaning justice, just like I didn't have an issue with Garland the left leaning justice that wasn't even given a hearing. And as I mentioned, they could have withdrawn Kavanaugh and still put up a right leaning justice candidate. I just don't think he was the right candidate for the "right" to go so all in over.

You're correct neither party is shining example of what is right or good for the Country. And you express many ideals for what the US government should be like, but that isn't the structure or balance that we have. And there has been well designed efforts to make sure that it doesn't happen. One side does a better job of protecting and increasing their control than the other and all you have to do is really dig into voting district demographics. We can also look at how population density of say the electoral college really gives more "power" to States where less people live and "penalizes" States where more people live.

The money and power that is in the lobbying/partisan driving nature of our politics is one that is so entrenched it will never be broken. Or why when the stakes get to rough (i.e. they have pissed off their electorate enough that even their strongest supporters want them gone) the elected official bows out of "public" service and waltzes into a six figure+ "private" sector job. Same with military officials, and anyone with clearances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dilligaf0
The issues with Ellison need to be called out, any reasonable person would agree with that. I'm not following his issues in detail because he's not in my state. But, if I were in his state, just on the optics he wouldn't get my vote and I honestly think he should remove himself from consideration and face whatever charges he has coming. I will be openly honest I'm concerned about elected people with questionable baggage getting elected, but at least in that case the ability to remove them from said role is much easier. Yes still a position of power/influence, but it is not comparable to a federal judge.
The ability to remove a sitting judge with a lifetime appointment at any level is stacked in a way that it while not impossible is very close to that in terms of what it would take for them to be forced out of office.
While Ellison isn't going for a Federal position, people should be concerned because he is a sitting Co-chair of the DNC and he is a US Representative so he does have an impact at the federal level. It's hypocritical for the DNC to keep him there, and he should be removed. Just like an officer when they are involved in a shooting, officials (elected and appointed) should be removed until an investigation has been done.
You say you're a centrist. I consider myself a moderate. I'm left leaning on Social Issues (health care, gay rights, women's contraceptive issues) I lean right on most Economic Issues (taxes, trade agreements,wage negotiations). The real toss up for me is in regards to Military Issues (spending/war powers and so forth). So as it stems with social issues or as you put it personal liberties those are issues that can and will be deeply affected if the balance keeps moving right of center. As I noted in my previous response I didn't have issues with Gorsich despite being right leaning justice, just like I didn't have an issue with Garland the left leaning justice that wasn't even given a hearing. And as I mentioned, they could have withdrawn Kavanaugh and still put up a right leaning justice candidate. I just don't think he was the right candidate for the "right" to go so all in over.
For me, I don't view the typical definitions as being specific to one party or the other. Remember, JFK was a devout Catholic, yet was a member of the Democratic party which caused a lot of controversy and fear of church mingling with the state. There's also Republicans who are pro-choice, and I think there's only a select few who would have ill-will towards the gay community. So, there's exceptions there, and somehow these definitions of which party is associated to what are incorrectly defined. The same goes for wealth, I would venture a guess that there's as many [mb]illionaires who lean left as there are on the right. Probably more given how much of Hollywood, athletes and the tech industry typically lean left. Yet, why aren't the 99% screaming about unfairness there? Especially when Hillary charges more than $300,000 per speech (average is 20 minutes). But, again, it's easy to overlook the "evils" people are against when it's your own candidate.
As mentioned, I don't like Kavanaugh and I don't think he should have been appointed. I even went so far as to say that these people should be heavily vetted before they are nominated for a position, or when they get the official support of the political party. But it'll never happen.
You're correct neither party is shining example of what is right or good for the Country. And you express many ideals for what the US government should be like, but that isn't the structure or balance that we have. And there has been well designed efforts to make sure that it doesn't happen. One side does a better job of protecting and increasing their control than the other and all you have to do is really dig into voting district demographics. We can also look at how population density of say the electoral college really gives more "power" to States where less people live and "penalizes" States where more people live.
I looked into how much the RNC and DNC have been in power at the Federal level. Learned an interesting bit of information regarding the so-called "shift in the balance of power" that so many fear. If that page is correct, there never was a balance of power to begin with. I'll leave it to you and others to read it instead of my giving the details.
I can't speak to the redistricting aspect as I haven't looking into it and would prefer to not speak wrongly on it. I do know there are two mandates at the Federal level which are supposed to govern redistricing: Equal population distribution for each district within a particular state and that there shall be no discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. This second I would imagine is very difficult to balance out given minorities typically live in higher density areas instead of suburbs or rural areas. So, it is either unfairly a minority centric vote for the district or it gets split and unfairly diluted with others. Almost seems a no-win situation.
As to state with lower population having equal votes as those with higher populations, that is Constitutionally setup and has been since its inception because it was a problem early on in our country's history as well as before then in other countries. This is to ensure that states have equal say in the matter, and comes from years of issues where lesser population centers are constantly overrun and neglected by those with more. Look at some of the larger states with very rural areas. Many of those places are barely surviving and get very little assistance from Federal and state aid. Again, kind of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
The money and power that is in the lobbying/partisan driving nature of our politics is one that is so entrenched it will never be broken. Or why when the stakes get to rough (i.e. they have pissed off their electorate enough that even their strongest supporters want them gone) the elected official bows out of "public" service and waltzes into a six figure+ "private" sector job. Same with military officials, and anyone with clearances.
Personally, I have no issues if a public official leaves and goes into a high-paying job. If you're as you say you are, then you shouldn't either as it's market and experience driven and people are willing to pay them that. Where I have issues, is when our elected officials take money while they are in office and become very wealthy. Or, significantly more than when they first entered.
While I thik he was one of our worst Presidents, I have a huge amount of respect for Jimmy Carter in his post-Presidency life. Not only for some of the things he's done to help improve the lives of others. But, because he's lived such a humble life since leaving office. The article I linked shows the kind of person he is compared to those who've been president after him.
I'd hate to see what Trump is going to cost us per year after his term is over. At least he'll be out of office. But, I'd still be concerned regarding the level of Nat'l Secrets he knows and what may be done to make money off them, sell, etc.
 
I was bothered very much by Kavanaugh's demeanor during the hearing. Combative, political and argumentative are not good qualities in a (supposedly neutral) Supreme court Justice.
Anyone that refuses to try to understand someone else's opinion isn't worth my time.

I was also concerned about his demeanor yet also understand there is a limit to anyone's patience while undergoing partisan attacks... especially when a man's family is receiving death threats.

His record as a judge is stellar from everything I've heard, otherwise, the left wouldn't have "Leaked" what was meant to be confidential in the first place, no?
 
While Ellison isn't going for a Federal position, people should be concerned because he is a sitting Co-chair of the DNC and he is a US Representative so he does have an impact at the federal level. It's hypocritical for the DNC to keep him there, and he should be removed. Just like an officer when they are involved in a shooting, officials (elected and appointed) should be removed until an investigation has been done.

As I stated previously he should remove himself and face his charges and the consequences. Optically if I lived in his state party aside he wouldn't get my vote. And I agree he should remove himself from all aspects of his current privelges. For him not, can easily and should be seen as hypocritical. However, if the DNC and the "left" choose to let him stay they should expect the backlash that is him voted out of office. Something that if he were an "appointed' official like a Federal Judge is much harder to accomplish. While yes he has a federal impact it isn't necessarily lifelong or blocked from easy removal. But, again I agree he's a black mark for the "Left' until he's dealt with.

For me, I don't view the typical definitions as being specific to one party or the other. Remember, JFK was a devout Catholic, yet was a member of the Democratic party which caused a lot of controversy and fear of church mingling with the state. There's also Republicans who are pro-choice, and I think there's only a select few who would have ill-will towards the gay community. So, there's exceptions there, and somehow these definitions of which party is associated to what are incorrectly defined. The same goes for wealth, I would venture a guess that there's as many [mb]illionaires who lean left as there are on the right. Probably more given how much of Hollywood, athletes and the tech industry typically lean left. Yet, why aren't the 99% screaming about unfairness there? Especially when Hillary charges more than $300,000 per speech (average is 20 minutes). But, again, it's easy to overlook the "evils" people are against when it's your own candidate.
As mentioned, I don't like Kavanaugh and I don't think he should have been appointed. I even went so far as to say that these people should be heavily vetted before they are nominated for a position, or when they get the official support of the political party. But it'll never happen.

There is a lot to unpack there and I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree. My issue isn't about outliers on either side or their supporters. There are clear and distinct positions that either side has on particularly policies. That is just a fact. More of the left is going to be anti-abortion than the right. More of the left is going to be pro gay marriage than the right. More of the right is going to be pro busines than the left. More of the right is going to be pro defense spending than the left. And if there is a policy of national change such as a constituional ammendment or whatever those outliers are going to tend to vote for their "Party" and not necessarily their own belief. Which is why I cited Susan Collins 4 hour speech to say she sided with her party like she often does. To your point Joe Manichin and Lisa Murkowski broke from party line on Kavanaugh. Murkowski is likely safe, But, that was more likely for self preservation for Manichin in his voting area than what he really wanted to do. As if/not when the "right" has a better candiate to challenge him they will likely take his seat back.

Probably more given how much of Hollywood, athletes and the tech industry typically lean left. Yet, why aren't the 99% screaming about unfairness there

I'm sorry but that reads like "left wing media" talking point 101 from the "right". There have been plenty of Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Fortune 500 execs etc that vote republican. It goes under reported that the CEO/Board of Directors of the scary left wing media is controlled by people that vote right. The arguments that come out of this group of people particularly the "Athlete/Musician/Actor realm is that it's stick to "blank" if you don't agree with my position but then it is totally cool if you are that person and are on my side. So just take lightning rod Kanye West. When Kanye said George Bush doesn't care about black people oh the uproar on the right. And then when the same dude says slavery is a choice uproar from the left. Or when that same individual gets challenged for clearly having shitty and uniformed positions. Since he's currently leaning towards the "MAGA Trump" side you got people like Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, and Ben Shapiro. Who nortiously want to discredit any celebrity that speaks for the left informed or uniformed like Kanye. Blatantly ignoring their own positions on "celebrites" to defend the one that is saying the things they like. Hell Charlie Kirk just did this a couple of days ago when Taylor Swift expressed a detailed opinion of why she wasn't supporting a Republican candidate. He cast her aside as just another "leftist" know nothing but he's been staunchly saying the opposite for Kanye who on Kanye's own words is proving to be uniformed and just a provocateur.

I looked into how much the RNC and DNC have been in power at the Federal level. Learned an interesting bit of information regarding the so-called "shift in the balance of power" that so many fear. If that page is correct, there never was a balance of power to begin with. I'll leave it to you and others to read it instead of my giving the details.
I can't speak to the redistricting aspect as I haven't looking into it and would prefer to not speak wrongly on it. I do know there are two mandates at the Federal level which are supposed to govern redistricting: Equal population distribution for each district within a particular state and that there shall be no discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. This second I would imagine is very difficult to balance out given minorities typically live in higher density areas instead of suburbs or rural areas. So, it is either unfairly a minority centric vote for the district or it gets split and unfairly diluted with others. Almost seems a no-win situation.
As to state with lower population having equal votes as those with higher populations, that is Constitutionally setup and has been since its inception because it was a problem early on in our country's history as well as before then in other countries. This is to ensure that states have equal say in the matter, and comes from years of issues where lesser population centers are constantly overrun and neglected by those with more. Look at some of the larger states with very rural areas. Many of those places are barely surviving and get very little assistance from Federal and state aid. Again, kind of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

We can agree that it's a damned if you do damned if you don't area. But, there is something that needs to be considered that people claim the will of the people. When you have an Senator in California that represents a million people and a Senator in say Wyoming that represent less than 500,000 people. The proportionality of these things are out of line. But, yeah there is no real way to fix this so we agree there. I see what you are saying about the population distribution rules. First those will never pass at a National Level. There is a case in Florida that is likely headed to the Supreme Court for this on a State level. You bring up unfairly minority centric vote districts. That is exactly what i'm talking about take a place. For example in North Carolina There is a district that is drawn in a crazy diagonal line to force all the minorities into the same district. Not because it geographically makes sense. It was done to dilute a voter base that was predominately against the party in control of drawing the lines. So instead of areas that could be 60/40 or 55/45 you get areas that are 90/10 and 80/20 etc. So really 'you are representing the people', but you aren't representing the people. And then this flows into other aspects of representation. There isn't a perfect way to draw these lines, but there is a better way than what is being currently done.

Personally, I have no issues if a public official leaves and goes into a high-paying job. If you're as you say you are, then you shouldn't either as it's market and experience driven and people are willing to pay them that. Where I have issues, is when our elected officials take money while they are in office and become very wealthy. Or, significantly more than when they first entered.
While I thik he was one of our worst Presidents, I have a huge amount of respect for Jimmy Carter in his post-Presidency life. Not only for some of the things he's done to help improve the lives of others. But, because he's lived such a humble life since leaving office. The article I linked shows the kind of person he is compared to those who've been president after him.
I'd hate to see what Trump is going to cost us per year after his term is over. At least he'll be out of office. But, I'd still be concerned regarding the level of Nat'l Secrets he knows and what may be done to make money off them, sell, etc.

I like that you bring up you have personally no issues with a public official out of office and goes into a high paying job. I misunderstood you on the aspect of them getting rich while in office. And you misunderstood me on how they capitalize on who/what they are out of office for monetary gain. But, if ...IF...you are as you say you are you have no issue with them making that kind of money when they are out of office. Like you know Hillary Clinton getting $300,000 per speech she's not in office. She can command whatever a party is willing to pay for her "knowledge" right? As should any former legislator right?

now if your issue is strictly that they are getting paid that kind of money in office then yeah we can agree that that is not a good look. And leads to much of the junk we have to deal with.
 
I'm sorry but that reads like "left wing media" talking point 101 from the "right". There have been plenty of Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Fortune 500 execs etc that vote republican. It goes under reported that the CEO/Board of Directors of the scary left wing media is controlled by people that vote right. The arguments that come out of this group of people particularly the "Athlete/Musician/Actor realm is that it's stick to "blank" if you don't agree with my position but then it is totally cool if you are that person and are on my side. So just take lightning rod Kanye West. When Kanye said George Bush doesn't care about black people oh the uproar on the right. And then when the same dude says slavery is a choice uproar from the left. Or when that same individual gets challenged for clearly having shitty and uniformed positions. Since he's currently leaning towards the "MAGA Trump" side you got people like Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, and Ben Shapiro. Who nortiously want to discredit any celebrity that speaks for the left informed or uniformed like Kanye. Blatantly ignoring their own positions on "celebrites" to defend the one that is saying the things they like. Hell Charlie Kirk just did this a couple of days ago when Taylor Swift expressed a detailed opinion of why she wasn't supporting a Republican candidate. He cast her aside as just another "leftist" know nothing but he's been staunchly saying the opposite for Kanye who on Kanye's own words is proving to be uniformed and just a provocateur.
While there are exceptions to the rule when it comes to entertainers, it's well known that most entertainers are left leaning. It's also been shown that most of the Silicone Valley Tech industry is also left leaning. I was bringing this up primarily because people seem to have issues with the money CEO's make. Yet, when it comes to those who lean left that do so, it gets overlooked. This type of thing happens in general with most things, as I've been saying for a long time in this and other threads. "Point fingers and cry foul, yet deny" when caught with hand in the cookie ja.

I see what you are saying about the population distribution rules. First those will never pass at a National Level. There is a case in Florida that is likely headed to the Supreme Court for this on a State level. You bring up unfairly minority centric vote districts. That is exactly what i'm talking about take a place. For example in North Carolina There is a district that is drawn in a crazy diagonal line to force all the minorities into the same district. Not because it geographically makes sense. It was done to dilute a voter base that was predominately against the party in control of drawing the lines. So instead of areas that could be 60/40 or 55/45 you get areas that are 90/10 and 80/20 etc. So really 'you are representing the people', but you aren't representing the people. And then this flows into other aspects of representation. There isn't a perfect way to draw these lines, but there is a better way than what is being currently done.
I think you misread what I wrote. I was saying that no matter how one looked at it, when you redistrict someone is going to be unhappy. I provided the two examples where it's either a primary minority vote, or it gets diluted. In one case, the argument could be said that they're squeezed into a district and has minimal say because it's just one district. In the other, the complaint could be that it's diluted and they could feel they won't be represented in any of them. Again, not an easy situation to resolve. But, I do agree that there are better ways to do it. Just unsure of how since there's many factors that go into redistricting which shouldn't be there such as splitting a predominately right or left leaning district. Which, isn't illegal since only race and population count are the two mandates for redistricting at a federal level. State levels are different apparently, and look at many different things according to this site. This is a situation where it'd be easier if the same rules applied to both state and fed levels.

I like that you bring up you have personally no issues with a public official out of office and goes into a high paying job. I misunderstood you on the aspect of them getting rich while in office. And you misunderstood me on how they capitalize on who/what they are out of office for monetary gain. But, if ...IF...you are as you say you are you have no issue with them making that kind of money when they are out of office. Like you know Hillary Clinton getting $300,000 per speech she's not in office. She can command whatever a party is willing to pay for her "knowledge" right? As should any former legislator right?

now if your issue is strictly that they are getting paid that kind of money in office then yeah we can agree that that is not a good look. And leads to much of the junk we have to deal with.

Again, my point was that people were having problems with how much money a CEO and corporate execs were making in terms of sheer dollars. Yet, they never complained when Clinton, as well as now Obama, make $300,000 per speech while out of office. If they can command that kind of money, good for them. It's done while they are out of office, which is good. But, again, why is it the "99% movement" has issues with CEO getting paid high amounts of money, yet don't have issues when someone from their own party makes significantly more than that by being paid the amount they do? This is hypocritical to me.
 
When one side sees the other side with their hand in the cookie jar, they cry foul and point fingers. Yet, when they're caught they deny and deflect.

Politics aside, I really just hope at the end of the day, the real lesson from this comes down to teaching men (despite their political leanings, and especially those in power for they set society's example) that they can't just stick their hand in the proverbial cookie jar and expect not to see any...

Just fascinated by the long term ramifications that seemingly minor happenings can have.

Absolutely APPROPRIATE ramifications, for "happenings" that for too long have been swept aside as "minor", by a societal structure that I'm sure you are intelligent enough to analyse and question for yourselves now that you can surely hear our call, "enough is enough".
 
Politics aside, I really just hope at the end of the day, the real lesson from this comes down to teaching men (despite their political leanings, and especially those in power for they set society's example) that they can't just stick their hand in the proverbial cookie jar and expect not to see any...

Totally Agree!

I'm sure it's been discussed in HS & colleges. If not, it should be as a learning point to send a loud & clear message what you do in those formative years can follow you forever.
 
Rather obvious that you didn't understand my post.
Oh - excuse me, it must be my hysterical lady-brain interfering with rational logic again. Whoops!!! So what was it you were trying to express then, if not that you believe societal ramifications for sexual abusers somehow outweigh the lifelong ramifications imposed upon the victims?? Feel free to expand and help to understand what is was you were trying to say :)
 
Feel free to expand and help to understand what is was you were trying to say :)

Can't say that I really see the need or that I feel particularly compelled to expand on such innocuous comments. Minor happenings, even well meaning ones, can often have negative results not initially thought of or apparent. A lukewarm take. Room temperature even. I'm puzzled by your decision to return to the comment and desecrate it by defecating on it but I won't feign interest by delving into how you reached it. I'll just find it funny and move on.
 
Interesting article. I don't think we'll ever see the end of this, nor know the truth on any of it.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...egarding-kavanaugh/ar-BBOUy0Z?ocid=spartandhp


When Sen. Chuck Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for criminal investigation Thursday, he cited Swetnick's interview with NBC News as evidence the two were trying to mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the NBC News interview that aired on Oct. 1, Swetnick back-tracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of boys."

NBC News also found other apparent inconsistencies in a second sworn statement from another woman whose statement Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bid to bolster Swetnick's claims.

In the second statement, the unidentified woman said she witnessed Kavanaugh "spike" the punch at high school parties in order to sexually take advantage of girls. But less than 48 hours before Avenatti released her sworn statement on Twitter, the same woman told NBC News a different story.

Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, "I didn't ever think it was Brett," the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick's claims. As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.

When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, "no." She did describe a culture of heavy drinking in high school that she took part in, and said Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were part of that group.

In a statement Thursday about his referral of Swetnick and Avenatti for a criminal investigation, Grassley said, "When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee's work, I take it seriously….But in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee. That's unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the truth."

Avenatti responded in a statement to NBC News saying, "Senator Grassley has just made a major mistake. Let the investigation into Kavanaugh and his lies begin."

Kavanaugh and Judge denied the allegations leveled by Swetnick and other women. Avenatti, asked about the inconsistencies within the second woman's account, said: "It is a sworn declaration that she read and signed and repeatedly stood behind."

According to the second woman's declaration that Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said: "During the years 1981-82, I witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say 'No.'"

The statement also said that Kavanaugh was "overly aggressive and verbally abusive to girls. This conduct included inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature."

But reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

When pressed about abusive behavior towards girls, she wrote in a text: "I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence. Male or female."

BBOUlYp.img
© Michael Avenatti Julie Swetnick
Shortly after tweeting out the woman's allegations on Oct. 2, Avenatti confirmed to NBC News that it was the same woman interviewed by phone on Sept. 30. But when questioned on Oct. 3 about the discrepancies between what she said in the phone interview and the serious allegations in the sworn declaration, Avenatti said he was "disgusted" with NBC News. At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, "How about this, on background, it's not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?"

After NBC News received text messages from the woman refuting some of the claims in the declaration, NBC reached out again to Avenatti, who defended the declaration.

"I have no idea what you are talking about," he said in a text. "I have a signed declaration that states otherwise together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration. There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions."

He sent a follow-up message moments later: "I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct," Avenatti said. "She must have been confused by your question."

Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti. "Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue," the text read.

But when reached by phone minutes later, the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. She said she's "been consistent in what she's told Michael."

In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words."
 
Interesting article. I don't think we'll ever see the end of this, nor know the truth on any of it.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...egarding-kavanaugh/ar-BBOUy0Z?ocid=spartandhp


When Sen. Chuck Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for criminal investigation Thursday, he cited Swetnick's interview with NBC News as evidence the two were trying to mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the NBC News interview that aired on Oct. 1, Swetnick back-tracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of boys."

NBC News also found other apparent inconsistencies in a second sworn statement from another woman whose statement Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bid to bolster Swetnick's claims.

In the second statement, the unidentified woman said she witnessed Kavanaugh "spike" the punch at high school parties in order to sexually take advantage of girls. But less than 48 hours before Avenatti released her sworn statement on Twitter, the same woman told NBC News a different story.

Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, "I didn't ever think it was Brett," the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick's claims. As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.

When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, "no." She did describe a culture of heavy drinking in high school that she took part in, and said Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were part of that group.

In a statement Thursday about his referral of Swetnick and Avenatti for a criminal investigation, Grassley said, "When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee's work, I take it seriously….But in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee. That's unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the truth."

Avenatti responded in a statement to NBC News saying, "Senator Grassley has just made a major mistake. Let the investigation into Kavanaugh and his lies begin."

Kavanaugh and Judge denied the allegations leveled by Swetnick and other women. Avenatti, asked about the inconsistencies within the second woman's account, said: "It is a sworn declaration that she read and signed and repeatedly stood behind."

According to the second woman's declaration that Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said: "During the years 1981-82, I witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say 'No.'"

The statement also said that Kavanaugh was "overly aggressive and verbally abusive to girls. This conduct included inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature."

But reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

When pressed about abusive behavior towards girls, she wrote in a text: "I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence. Male or female."

BBOUlYp.img
© Michael Avenatti Julie Swetnick
Shortly after tweeting out the woman's allegations on Oct. 2, Avenatti confirmed to NBC News that it was the same woman interviewed by phone on Sept. 30. But when questioned on Oct. 3 about the discrepancies between what she said in the phone interview and the serious allegations in the sworn declaration, Avenatti said he was "disgusted" with NBC News. At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, "How about this, on background, it's not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?"

After NBC News received text messages from the woman refuting some of the claims in the declaration, NBC reached out again to Avenatti, who defended the declaration.

"I have no idea what you are talking about," he said in a text. "I have a signed declaration that states otherwise together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration. There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions."

He sent a follow-up message moments later: "I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct," Avenatti said. "She must have been confused by your question."

Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti. "Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue," the text read.

But when reached by phone minutes later, the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. She said she's "been consistent in what she's told Michael."

In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words."

 
I'm not shocked about the stuff in the article. I just think it's an interesting read.
I am shocked that they even bothered to report on this so late after the fact. Unless they have no choice.

Also curious if the three names (this took 3 people?) who are allegedly reporting these "new questions" can even look at themselves in the mirror.
 
Like anything in politics, one side will do anything to try and destroy the other. This article helps to reinforce that.

Especially when you have the Attorney who has stated he has plans to run for President. Even more interesting is that he claims the Dems need to nominate a white man "because they are listend to more, and carry more clout".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.