What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

JazzyFresh said:
So who's drink did Kavanaugh spike and who's making the claim that he, personally, did?

I don't think that's a difficult question.
Click to expand...
Watch out everybody, JazzyFresh is looking for answers and he's not going to stop until he gets them.
 
JazzyFresh said:
So who's drink did Kavanaugh spike and who's making the claim that he, personally, did?

I don't think that's a difficult question.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was as much credibility to whatever her name is said about Kavanaugh. So it was reported at the time and then basically dropped. The allegations Ford made were far more credible and she delivered them herself in front of the Senate, so we all got a chance to judge for ourselves what we thought of her allegations. They seemed legit, she seemed legit, I believed her. The other women, I have no real idea about them. I don't know specifics about their allegations and I never really formed a solid opinion of what I thought of them.
 
JazzyFresh said:
A person said something and there is no proof. I should of used the word hearsay which holds no weight in court. My badm
Click to expand...

There were first hand accounts; Blasely's statement is first hand.

Here's a recap


You can review testimony on youtube, one clip is 10 hours long and encompasses much more than just her first hand experience.

But let's say you were questioning the validity of another statement; others(Julie Swetnik, other friends) witnessed assault. And that's pretty easy once you grasp why survivors(and even bystanders) don't say anything. I encourage you to read this. It covers survivors, only. But how many of the below would apply to witnesses?

  • Fear of reprisal
    • Pretty valid for anyone that even heard something, let alone witness it
  • Personal matter
  • Reported to a different official
    • Perhaps witnesses did report it to a principal or teacher.
  • Not important enough to respondent
    • I can see a world where children(who are cruel) don't think the victim is worth their help
  • Belief that the police would not do anything to help
    • Big time
  • Belief that the police could not do anything to help
    • Bigger time
  • Did not want to get offender in trouble with law
    • Seems like covering for your buddy is common
  • Did not want family to know
    • Privacy Concerns
  • Did not want others to know
    • Same
  • Not enough proof
    • Same as police could/would not do anything
  • Fear of the justice system
    • Reliving a horrible event isn't fun
  • Did not know how
  • Feel the crime was not “serious enough”
    • Sexual Culture in the 80's was very different than now
  • Fear of lack of evidence
  • Unsure about perpetrator’s intent
Events are corroborated through her Blasely-Ford's conversation with her husband, and a counselor, and I feel like several of her close friends, but can't find anything citing those. The "corroboration" happened before little k was nominated for appointment. It's not like Blasely-Ford is doing it for the money. She's comfortable in life. That, too, is important because her credibility is at stake. She put herself out there for no social or financial gain.

So Yeah, Mr Fresh. You have picked a side. The side of "that's not evidence".

That being said, what exactly would YOU need? Not to convict mind you... that ship has sailed. But what evidence would you need to disqualify someone from the highest court in the land?
 
Gameface said:
I don't think there was as much credibility to whatever her name is said about Kavanaugh. So it was reported at the time and then basically dropped. The allegations Ford made were far more credible and she delivered them herself in front of the Senate, so we all got a chance to judge for ourselves what we thought of her allegations. They seemed legit, she seemed legit, I believed her. The other women, I have no real idea about them. I don't know specifics about their allegations and I never really form a solid opinion of what I thought of them.
Click to expand...
Thank you!!! As I've said things like not remembering basic ****, 30+ years later, and having the lawyer admit she had a political bias, makes me question her. I will never say she's lying though because I don't know. I will never say a negative thing about her either. Same goes for Kavanaugh. It's so ****ed up and immoral to do that to either imo.
 
Harambe said:
There were first hand accounts; Blasely's statement is first hand.

Here's a recap


You can review testimony on youtube, one clip is 10 hours long and encompasses much more than just her first hand experience.

But let's say you were questioning the validity of another statement; others(Julie Swetnik, other friends) witnessed assault. And that's pretty easy once you grasp why survivors(and even bystanders) don't say anything. I encourage you to read this. It covers survivors, only. But how many of the below would apply to witnesses?

  • Fear of reprisal
    • Pretty valid for anyone that even heard something, let alone witness it
  • Personal matter
  • Reported to a different official
    • Perhaps witnesses did report it to a principal or teacher.
  • Not important enough to respondent
    • I can see a world where children(who are cruel) don't think the victim is worth their help
  • Belief that the police would not do anything to help
    • Big time
  • Belief that the police could not do anything to help
    • Bigger time
  • Did not want to get offender in trouble with law
    • Seems like covering for your buddy is common
  • Did not want family to know
    • Privacy Concerns
  • Did not want others to know
    • Same
  • Not enough proof
    • Same as police could/would not do anything
  • Fear of the justice system
    • Reliving a horrible event isn't fun
  • Did not know how
  • Feel the crime was not “serious enough”
    • Sexual Culture in the 80's was very different than now
  • Fear of lack of evidence
  • Unsure about perpetrator’s intent
Events are corroborated through her Blasely-Ford's conversation with her husband, and a counselor, and I feel like several of her close friends, but can't find anything citing those. The "corroboration" happened before little k was nominated for appointment. It's not like Blasely-Ford is doing it for the money. She's comfortable in life. That, too, is important because her credibility is at stake. She put herself out there for no social or financial gain.

So Yeah, Mr Fresh. You have picked a side. The side of "that's not evidence".

That being said, what exactly would YOU need? Not to convict mind you... that ship has sailed. But what evidence would you need to disqualify someone from the highest court in the land?
Click to expand...

Than you as well! This type of stuff is all I've been asking for. It's like pulling teeth sometimes.

To answer your question, a guilty verdict. Innocent until proven guilty. Every single person deserves that. As I've said, I don't wish what the left has done to Kavanaugh on my worst enemy. That includes what Republicans did to Hillary.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Than you as well! This type of stuff is all I've been asking for. It's like pulling teeth sometimes.

To answer your question, a guilty verdict. Innocent until proven guilty. Every single person deserves that. As I've said, I don't wish what the left has done to Kavanaugh on my worst enemy. That includes what Republicans did to Hillary.
Click to expand...

A guilty verdict can not be had. Statute of Limitations has passed. Are you sure you want to stand by that?
 
Catchall said:
There's a Whistleblower Protection Act that guarantees a government whistleblower freedom to make their claims (free speech) and be protected from prejudice, like getting fired or vilified for blowing the whistle. I don't think it says the whistleblower can remain anonymous. In most cases, who the whistleblower is, his/her experience, and the relation to the people being accused are all pretty relevant and important to establish the accusations as credible. That's usually why the first thing a whistleblower does is announce who he or she is.

If this person is CIA and needs to hide his identity as part of his job, then maybe that's different. It's possible he could testify behind closed doors. If it turns out this guy is working as a spy under cover in the White House, he may need to be reassigned. Trump probably also wants him removed.
Click to expand...
There is also a separate Intelligence Community Whistleblowers Act, which does largely guarantee anonymity. That's the purpose of having the whistleblower go through the intelligence community inspector general as has widely been reported. I found this document by Congressional Research Service discussing that act. I bolded the "shall not."

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf
Intelligence Community Whistleblower
Protections
(page 3)
Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable:
The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.​
 
JazzyFresh said:
Than you as well! This type of stuff is all I've been asking for. It's like pulling teeth sometimes.

To answer your question, a guilty verdict. Innocent until proven guilty. Every single person deserves that. As I've said, I don't wish what the left has done to Kavanaugh on my worst enemy. That includes what Republicans did to Hillary.
Click to expand...
Hey if that's your standard than are you willing to extend that to say OJ Simpson? He must be innocent too.
 
JazzyFresh said:
100%

Theres reasons for Statue of Limitations. Sadly she had her time.
Click to expand...

Allow me to inflate this for you, in an effort for you to see why I think your stance is flawed.

A man is born in America. He makes his fortunes overseas buying and selling slaves, often under age. Multiple times he ordered people raped, and raped a few himself. All of this by age 26. Comes back to America, and just doesn't tell anyone at first. He's got cash, and speaks well in public, and runs through school quickly. Gets a job as a judge, climbs the ranks over the next 40 years.

At 66 years old gets nominated for the supreme court, and during an extensive background check, his crimes from 40+ years come out. He even admits it.

You're ok with that guy deciding how to manage guns, debt, polygamy, and gay marriage?
 
Zombie said:
Hey if that's your standard than are you willing to extend that to say OJ Simpson? He must be innocent too.
Click to expand...
Sure... I honestly don't know if he's guilty. I have my suspicions but I'm not going to scream guilty and make it a goal to ruin his life. I reiterate, that flat out wrong.
 
Harambe said:
Allow me to inflate this for you, in an effort for you to see why I think your stance is flawed.

A man is born in America. He makes his fortunes overseas buying and selling slaves, often under age. Multiple times he ordered people raped, and raped a few himself. All of this by age 26. Comes back to America, and just doesn't tell anyone at first. He's got cash, and speaks well in public, and runs through school quickly. Gets a job as a judge, climbs the ranks over the next 40 years.

At 66 years old gets nominated for the supreme court, and during an extensive background check, his crimes from 40+ years come out. He even admits it.

You're ok with that guy deciding how to manage guns, debt, polygamy, and gay marriage?
Click to expand...
He admitted guilt... In that case I would take his word for it. As far as the limitations? With the admission of guilt I'd like him to be held accountable.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Sure... I honestly don't know if he's guilty. I have my suspicions but I'm not going to scream guilty and make it a goal to ruin his life. I reiterate, that flat out wrong.
Click to expand...
So, if OJ Simpson was running for office you wouldn't hold that against him in any way?
 
colton said:
I didn't know which of the various political threads this would best fit in, so I figured, why not start a new one?

This twitter thread by David Rothkopf says it very eloquently so I'll post all the text here.


"It's the racism. But it's not just the racism. It's sex crimes. But it's not just the sex crimes. It's the concentration camps. But it's not just the concentration camps. It's the corruption. But it's not just the corruption.

It's being a traitor. But it's not just being a traitor. It's the obstruction of justice but its not just the obstruction of justice. It's the attacks on rule of law. But it's not just the attacks on the rule of law. It's the assault on freedom of the press.

But it's not just the assault on freedom of the press. It's the pathological lying. But it's not just the pathological lying. It's the unfitness for office. But it's not just the unfitness for office. It's the incompetence. But it's not just the incompetence.

It's the attacks on our most important allies and alliances. But it's not just the attacks on most important allies and alliances. It's the systematic destruction of our environment. But it's not just the systematic destruction of our environment.

It's the violation of international treaties and agreements. But it is not just the violation of international treaties and agreements. It's the embrace of our enemies. But it is not just the embrace of our enemies.

It's the defense of murdering dictators but it is not just the defense of murdering dictators. It is the serial undermining of our national security. But it is not just the serial undermining of our national security. It is the nepotism. But it's not just the nepotism.

It's the attacks on our federal law enforcement and intelligence communities. But it is not just the attacks on our federal law enforcement and intelligence communities. It's the fiscal recklessness. But it's not just the fiscal recklessness.

It's the degradation of the office and of public discourse in America. But it's not just the degradation of the office and of public discourse in America. It's the support of Nazis and white supremacists. But it's not just the support of Nazis and white supremacists.

It's the dead in Puerto Rico and the at the border. But it's not just the dead in Puerto Rico and at the border. It's turning the US government into a criminal conspiracy to empower and enrich the president and his supporters.

But it's not just the turning the US government into a criminal conspiracy to empower and enrich the president and his supporters. It's weaponization of politics in America to attack the weak. But it's not just the weaponization of American politics to attack the weak.

It's all these things together and the threat of worse to come. It is the damage that can not be undone. It is pathology that has overtaken our politics and our society, the revelation that 40 percent of the population and an entire political party are profoundly immoral.

It is a disease that has infected our system and is killing it. At the moment, we still have the wherewithal to fight back. But even those who recognize the dangers of this litany of crimes are proving too complacent, too inert in the face of this threat.

It is one of those moments in the history of a country when there is a choice to be made, a choice between having a future and not, between growth and decay, between democracy and oligarchy, between what we dreamt of being and what even our founders feared we might become.

The litany of crises and crimes is so long that we are becoming numb. You have heard of the fog of war. This is the fog of Trump. The volume of wrongs becomes its own defense. Is the president accused of being a rapist? Well, then remind them he is a racist and they'll forget.

This is a moment for leaders to step up. To challenge each of these abuses via every legal means available. To organize and draw attention to them. To blow the whistle if you are in government and you are being asked to violate your oath. To resist and refuse to be complicit.

If you can't do those things that make your voice heard and join a movement, support a political candidate, donate money, register voters, fight voter suppression. But whatever you do, resist becoming numb. Resist the temptation to let the recitation of old crimes and new...

...become a deadening drone. Every one matters in times like these. Every one must stand up for what is right. In their homes. In their schools. In the workplace. In their churches and synagogues and mosques.

We are approaching a great national decision about whether the American experiment will succeed or fail, whether this moment does what two world wars, a civil war and countless past misjudgments and missteps could not.

We will make it together, resist, offer a better alternative, embrace that alternative and the best leaders we can find...or succumb, let the inertia of some among us mark the end of what for two and half centuries was an idea so compelling it inspired the world."
Click to expand...

Wow, I just realized the person who inspired me to get vocal and start this thread is the same person whose podcast I recommended a couple of days ago--David Rothkopf, who does Deep State Radio. I totally had not made that connection until just now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top