So the story goes. If Fox had an interview with someone that proves Russian collusion and is sitting on it so the author can write a book after the Trump Presidency is over do you feel the same way?
The timing on the hold and the release is nonsense. It was held to protect the Senate race, and it's being released now so it can be old news when the voting starts. It's blatant manipulation.
The reporter didn't discover a fact and then plan not to release it. He didn't have the fact and was incapable of discovering it without a prior commitment of not releasing the fact until after a specified time. There is a world of difference between the two scenarios. The most ethical scenario would have been for him to request not being told the fact until the specified time, but it then would have delayed the publication of his book. As a journalist he can't violate the trust of his sources, so it was either not know the fact or delay reporting it - he didn't have the option of finding a source for the fact and then reporting it because the only ones who knew were the cDc members he was interviewing for his book.
Since the fact is pretty silly and unimportant there wasn't much issue with delaying it. For something serious there might be some rational for violating ones journalistic ethics and violating a promise - for something silly and trivial like this there isn't any reason.
I didn't think Beto was accused of Rape, where did you get that?
Once again, I'm going to assume you are implying Kavanaugh. The elements alleged were for groping, not rape or attempted rape. Which makes this assertion a bit of lie.
He is accussed of sexual assault, and particularly attempted rape. I'm not sure how you misremembered them. The most definitely were not for groping. She alleges he held her down, forcefully tried to remove her clothes, and convered her mouth when she tried to scream.
Here are her accussations, to be clear
Ford publicly came forward in a Washington Post story last Sunday; she accused Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her while the two were at a party in high school. She says he pinned her down on a bed, attempted to remove her clothing, and covered her mouth when she tried to scream. Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied these allegations.
Ford says she did not talk about the allegations with anyone until 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband. She provided the Post with notes from therapy sessions in 2012 and 2013 when she described an attempted rape that she experienced while she was in high school.
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/22/17886814/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-deborah-ramirezI'm just curious, where are you going with this? Are you going to 'splain anything and everything he does cause he's the man?
No, I'm for accurate accussations. He was suggesting Beto must have used a lot of long distance, rising to the level of felony. I was pointing out that isn't the case. He was stating that many had been charged with felonies for similar behavior - in fact under Texas law minors could not be charged with a felony for his behavior. Crunch said that Beto engaged in criminal behavior till his late 20's, the sources I see suggest that he largely ceased involvement with the cDc upon entering college and that his one actual alleged crime (theft of phone service) likely didn't go on after he entered college.
In this world, if he were a Republican anyone of the following would be a disqualifier: drunk driving, participation in hacking group, writing short fiction about killing kids (I mean my goodness, Beto shouldn't be allowed to visit a school on the see something say something modern standard).
Drunk driving as a teen might or might not be a disqualifier for me (depends on the level of intoxication, circumstances, behavior since). Participation in a 'hacking' group might or might not (again depends on the specifics) though generally wouldn't be unless it was malicious hacking. Writing *censored*ty fiction as a 15 year old? Almost definitely not. Only morons would find that disqualifing (admittedly there are plenty of morons who vote).
Meanwhile, Romney was attacked for an unproven assertion of high school bullyling,
I never heard of Romney being a high school bully - depending on the circumstances probably wouldn't be disqualifying.
and you won't let anything go on Kavanaugh even though there's no proof and most every assertion was absurd.
There was nothing absurd about the claim of attempted rape. I think reasonable people can disagree as to how well it was substantiated. I'd say it was better substantiated than the claim against Clinton and there has been far less time and effort expended to substantiate it.
On the whole hacker thing, I'm assuming this was between 83 and 95, that's exactly the time window (post War Games) when enforcement and legal actively ramped up consistently every year. And yes, the feds did take it seriously, though back then they were almost completely focused on government systems.
As I said - anything malicious was taken seriously. Low level intrusions that were harmeless were largely ignored. Phone phreaking - which is the only thing that Beto appears to have done - wasn't prosecutable against teens at that time.
I'm not aware of any serious litigation related to personal use of mixtapes. Nor of any non-commercial use. Selling a mixtape, sure. I'm not even aware of anything related to using them at a public venue (it's whether you have the right to use the songs at all, not whether you copied them onto a single tape that mattered). I mean heck, virtually every tape player in the 80s had 2 tape decks specifically to copy songs.
The two tapes were officially marketed for making 'backups' - which had been found to be fair use - and for editing. Now - if purchasers happened to use them to copy a tape borrowed from a friend - then of course the tape player manufacturers certainly condemned such unlawful behavior.
So you have no problem moving groping to rape, and no problem moving drunk driving to underage consumption (even though he was 26 at the time of the DWI)? I mean if I had to guess, Beto acted like an entitled white kid, because that's exactly what he was.
Personally I'm not particularly interested in Beto - so wasn't aware of his DUI at age 26. I was instead doing an analogy suggesting that by Crunches reasoning there is noone in the US that shouldn't be a serious criminal because most people (including myself) have engaged in underage drinking; or speeding. Similarly most have engaged in copyright infringement, and a large percentage have engaged in shoplifting.
Regarding DUI in general - I think it is a pretty stupid thing to do and it is something that requires restitution and regaining trust. I've no idea whether Beto has rehabilitated that behavior to my satisfaction. I did feel that GWB Jr. did so to my satisfaction.
Can you see your own flaw?
There wasn't a flaw in my reasoning, you simply assumed I had knowledge of the Beto incident and thus misinterpreted it. I find DWI as an adult to be pretty serious and irresponsible. Living in Alaska I know a lot of people who have done so at similar ages. I have a foster brother who went to jail for a long time for manslaughter because of it (my understanding is that he was drunk, the other driver was drunk and ran a red light, since he was drunk - Alaska law holds him as responsible, even if the other drivers behavior caused the accident). I have another foster brother who had a major license suspension before turning his life around - i do consider him responsible now.
Basically I view typical teen behavior to not really need to be addressed. I find serious teen behavior outside the norm needing to be addressed. I think that adults engaging in certain crimes that we might excuse as 'typical teen behavior' to need greater scrutiny.
That Ford spoke well? She had no details - at all, her friend who she said was at the party said she believed her, but personally she had never been a party with Kavanaugh and didn't know him. She never told anyone any details for decades. She didn't remember, the day, the year or any details about how she got there or left. That is not credible.
I'm not looking to rehash this discussion, see prior discussions if you like for details. I'm well aware that you don't think the accussations are credible. I think reasonable people can disagree. For instance, I think perjury is a pretty good reason that points to credibility.
Second, what the elements of rape and attempted rape? The accusation was of groping, there are no elements present that even plausible move it to rape or attempted rape. That's just a libel you won't let go.
I said above that accussations of rape and attempted rape are serious enough norm violations that they should be investigated. I have not stated that Kavanuagh has raped someone.
As to the elements of attempted rape, see above - they are clearly met in the description that Ford provided of the events.
There's no applicable statute of limitations on rape. If it were credible, MD could pursue the charges with or without Ford. Yet MD has not done so, and Ford has not filed charges. Why not?
Again, I've never stated that he has raped anyone. As to why hasn't he been charged. There are statute of limitations for what attempted rape. Also credible isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt", I don't think a jury would convinct based on the strength of the evidence. It is strong enough for a reasonable person to believe it likely, but not strong enough that a reasonable jury should not find sufficient doubt for an acquittal.
You've laid out the perjury nonsense before and it's a big nothing burger. You can go to his actual quotes and see what you'd have to prove and you've never shown that anyone can demonstrate that what he said was untrue.
I'm familiar with your opinion on the matter. I think that you are wrong, but I'm not going to take the time to rehash it. You saying "nothing burger" doesn't make it so.
In fact, its very certain that he didn't perjure himself.
You are free to believe what you will. I think there is a clear history on this board of me being fairly objective regardless of the political party, whereas you have a tendency to ignore any facts that are unflattering for Republicans, and overstating facts (or ignoring esculpatory facts) that are unflattering to Democrats.\
He was borne in 72, his burglary arrest (granted seems minor) was in 95 and his DWI was in 98. That'd be when he was 23 and 26 respectively. Did you look for a source, or are you limiting your call to the hacking?
Ah, yes, I thought he was refering to hacking. His DWI is definitely serious, if he ends up a candidate that I'm interested in I'll dig into it more, but right now I've not really spent much time looking at him (basically the only thing I've read about is his cDc membership and that he has ran for Senate, I've not payed any attention to him otherwise).
Again, you make up an allegation and act like it's real. Do you have some evidence that Trump is a rapist, let alone a serial rapist? I think there's some people in Congress that'd be interested.
Sure. I think that Ivanka Trump was definitely raped. There are other allegations that I think are less strong, but plausible.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-traffic-accusations/LR why do you keep saying things you have to know are not true?
Do you agree that if Ivana's description was accurate, that lawfullymeets all of the legal elements of rape?
There were rumors of Broaddrick's story before he was first elected in 1992. You can go to her Wiki and see that she was talking to people before then and that it even went to the NYT's and LA Times in 1992 but she wouldn't go on record and they dropped (lol, innocent times, not like today where they'd print it before they even spoke to her). There was even a secret tape of her story.
There were stories all over the place by his second election.
And she publicly stated that the rumors were false. I tend to believe alleged victims without strong evidence to refute it.
And to even get to this point you have to ignore the rumors from his time as governor. It was a different era then and a lot of this was swept under the rug, but the idea that it wasn't out there at the time of his election is untrue.
I don't or (didn't) have to ignore anything. I'm not someone who follows newspapers or TV news, and while I was deeply interested in social policy at that time, I didn't follow politics at all. I think my first Presidential election vote was for Kerry in 2004.
There are multiple accusers, who can name specific days and times, who were known to be linked directly to the Clintons, who had immediate falling outs. All of which is in the public record. There are photos linking them. There are witnesses to various things Hillary and Bill said that while ambiguous support the story. And of course, there's that he got caught lying about sexual situation (you know actual perjury).
You may be aware of accussations I'm not. I've never been particularly interested in or fond of Clinton. The accussations I've been aware of haven't been credible. Regarding perjury - I agree though I think the argument that "sexual relations" were defined by the judge and the attorney's to exclude receiving oral sex is persuasive as regards to that aspect of the claim of perjury.
I can't even imagine the mental gymnatistics you're doing to believe that Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist and Clinton is somehow not a rapist.
Personally I think that reasonable people can disagree in both cases.
No. Reasonable people can't disagree on credibility here. They can disagree on whether he's guilty.
I think they can reasonably disagree on both aspects.
We've been through your evidence before. It's not the hedge words that are the problem it's when you use "perjury" when you mean "you don't like him and wish you could show he lied."
It is amazing how often you conclude that the only reason someone can believe evidence against a Republican is due to their personal feelings towards the individual or their political leanings.
While I think you are a thoughtful and intelligent man, I don't think you are capable of rational evaluation of evidence when it comes to evaluating politicians that you agree or disagree with.