Kim Strassel made a very good point about all the requests for an FBI investigation: This can't be said enough. And so saying it again. The Senate is doing as thorough if not more thorough an investigation than the FBI would/could. It is talking to same people, getting same evidence. Anybody calling for FBI investigation is doing so purely for delay. The FBI doesn't even have the ability to compel anyone to talk to them, while the Senate does.
|
|
|
The women from CA just testified that she traveled to DC via airplane, that she traveled to DE via airplane last summer, and that has traveled via airplane many times, often to get to vacations, and for business purposes.
This directly contradicts with her claimed fear of flying, and with her reasons to not be able to testify on Monday, as she claimed to be afraid of flying.
She also testified that she did not submit to interviews with Senate staffers because she did not want to fly, and that she was hoping the staffers would come to her location, however this directly conflicts with Senator Grassley's staffers offering to go to her location to interview her.
Being afraid of something is not the same as being completely unable to do it. She got to DC, she's testifying under oath (something you didn't expect her to do). Her legal team was lying about the reasons why she cannot testify on Monday, and why she could not submit to interviews with Senate investigators.
edit: The women also testified that she did not pay for the polygraph test, but does not know who paid for it.
|
|
|
The women from CA just testified that she traveled to DC via airplane, that she traveled to DE via airplane last summer, and that has traveled via airplane many times, often to get to vacations, and for business purposes.
This directly contradicts with her claimed fear of flying, and with her reasons to not be able to testify on Monday, as she claimed to be afraid of flying.
She also testified that she did not submit to interviews with Senate staffers because she did not want to fly, and that she was hoping the staffers would come to her location, however this directly conflicts with Senator Grassley's staffers offering to go to her location to interview her.
|
|
|
The Wall Street journal is reporting that the creepy porn lawyer has released an affidavit in which someone who hold a security clearance claims she was drugged in a party in 1982 in which Kavanaugh was in attendance.
Based upon the fact she hired the creepy porn lawyer, I am unwilling to give her any credibility at this time.
|
|
|
Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.
Rape was illegal 30 years ago, that law hasn't changed. For me, the most important thing is the 5 times he lied under oath... Anyone who lies under oath should automatically be disqualified from being the highest judge in the land. They have proven themselves untrustworthy. You cannot appoint a known liar and expect them to judge others fairly. That's stupid as fuck When has he lied under oath? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, which were held in 2004 and 2006, and that those untruths disqualify him as a Supreme Court nominee.
They say Kavanaugh misled senators into believing he had no role in the selection and vetting process for three of Bush’s most controversial candidates for the federal courts: Jim Haynes, Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor. Democrats also say Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee in 2006 about his knowledge of a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program run by the NSA to monitor terrorists.
The overarching accusation is that Kavanaugh whitewashed his record, distancing himself from thorny political events instead of owning up to his role. A cache of emails and documents that have been released over the last few weeks proves Kavanaugh did not tell the truth, Democrats say. At his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court this month, Kavanaugh rejected these allegations, and the White House has denied them.
“Time and again, Kavanaugh appears to have misled the Senate under oath,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed on Sept. 13.
I am fairly confident those senators know that is about as a BS of a charge as the charges made by the women from CA and the women from Yale.
|
|
|
I don't think Plagiarism is something that needs to be pointed out as being something you can't do. First of all, this is something that people should know they shouldn't do, for a number of reasons, and I believe most people who do this know it is wrong, but do it anyway.
Also, I don't think it is as big of a problem in terms in the number of people getting into trouble doing this. Sure there are very many instances of this happening, however I suspect this is done by a fairly small number of people with a very large number of sockpuppet accounts, and I suspect this is often done via some kind of automation/AI.
|
|
|
Isn't ironic when someone is accusing you about scam, you'll give him/her neg tag instead of defending your self.
This happens quite frequently with one of these parties. Unfortunately, in this case, the accusation is quite credible, yet those in power have scared anyone from seriously caring...
|
|
|
Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.
Rape was illegal 30 years ago, that law hasn't changed. For me, the most important thing is the 5 times he lied under oath... Anyone who lies under oath should automatically be disqualified from being the highest judge in the land. They have proven themselves untrustworthy. You cannot appoint a known liar and expect them to judge others fairly. That's stupid as fuck When has he lied under oath?
|
|
|
but it's the only shot they got. If you're in a boxing match and realize you are about to be bettered by your opponent, and the only chance you have is to punch him in the balls, do you take it? Depends. Does the winner get to make the rules, including whether a ball punch is legal? I believe that's the calculation here if I'm getting your analogy right. I think the analogy is more trying to determine if you are willing to act ethically and fairly when you are about to lose. Your response answers that question.
|
|
|
Can you pin-point the reply where he is blatantly lying? I mean, as in lying, not having a different opinion.
In the flat earth thread, he claims he watched a ship go over the horizon and he brought it back with binoculars. That is obviously a lie, because it's impossible. :/ Okay. So, the correct wording should be: The user has been caught lying. Trade with caution. Or something along those lines. Not Believes the earth is flat. I can't trust people with severe mental issues. The rating is absolutely wrong. His statements regarding what he did or did not see have absolutely nothing to do with him being a scammer and/or someone planning on scamming in the future. The basis for any negative rating must ultimately be that the person is believed to be a scammer or someone who will scam in the future. The comment is only an explanation for this belief. The standard of “I don’t trust this person” is ridiculous and is an improper use of the trust system.
|
|
|
Unfortunately there isn’t anything that can be done. Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings and regularly leaves negative ratings to those who speak out against him.
The administration ignores all instances of clearly erroneous trust ratings in the name of “free markets” which is idiotic because the administration is who arbitrarily allowed these people to leave ratings with substantially greater weight in the first place.
In regards to your question in the OP, it is ridiculous to say that selling some kind of your ethically obtained is somehow going to make you a scammer or untrustworthy. That is nothing more than an effort to artificially and arbitrarily regulate free markets and stifle free trade.
The truth meter for that post: [img width= 350]https://www.iagreetosee.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ted-cruz-nose-meme-ted-cruz-lie-lying-ted-cruz-new-day-for-america-ted-cruz-nose-john-kasich.png[/img]
It still hurts that we killed your account farming and selling business, doesn't it? I think this post is a pretty good example of Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings
|
|
|
Unfortunately there isn’t anything that can be done. Lauda promptly ignores all concerns with his trust ratings and regularly leaves negative ratings to those who speak out against him.
The administration ignores all instances of clearly erroneous trust ratings in the name of “free markets” which is idiotic because the administration is who arbitrarily allowed these people to leave ratings with substantially greater weight in the first place.
In regards to your question in the OP, it is ridiculous to say that selling some kind of your ethically obtained is somehow going to make you a scammer or untrustworthy. That is nothing more than an effort to artificially and arbitrarily regulate free markets and stifle free trade.
|
|
|
She was speaking for her client, regardless of how untrustworthy she is. I don’t doubt that it was politically motivated though.
|
|
|
You fail to address: there is very clearly no trade dispute, nor any attempt/plan to steal money/property from others.
Why would I want to address a strawman? Vod never said that it's a "trade dispute" or "attempt/plan to steal money/property from others". Then you must admit that Vod is leaving negative trust for reasons other than the OP is a scammer/suspected scammer...
|
|
|
Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen.
You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats. You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public, and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report. The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public. The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report. I believe it is fair to say this, though. She reported her beliefs prior to the Kavanaugh hearings. It was Fienstien that kept silent about her letter and reported it at the 11th hour. Nobody would have complained about these charges being introduced at the proper time. The accuser's lawyer initially said her client (the accuser from CA) would do anything it takes to get to testify in front of the committee, and when she received an invitation to testify, she later demanded a FBI investigation, so I would not give her all that much credit for reporting it before the hearings. She also only gave her letter to a single Senator, who already was almost certainly going to vote against the nomination. Surely, if the accuser wanted her story heard by someone relevant, she would have sent it to Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, or Senator Flake, the later of which is always looking for ways to 'stick it' to Trump. Lastly, we don't know who leaked the letter. It could have been Feinstein, the CA representative, either of their staffers, or someone from the accuser's camp. I would not outright dismiss the theory that someone from Ford's camp leaked the allegation. The initial article published by the Intercept was critical of Feinstein, so it was probably not done at her direction, although it could have been one of her staffers doing this on their own.
|
|
|
The world is not flat, and there is substantial evidence to back it up. The appropriate course of action would be to present said evidence, not attempt to silence the OP via a negative rating. And yes a negative rating is very much an attempt to silence the OP, especially in this case.
Evidence has been presented. The OP has proceeded to double-down on their many lies. You fail to address: there is very clearly no trade dispute, nor any attempt/plan to steal money/property from others.
|
|
|
Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen.
You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats. You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public, and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report. The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public. The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report.
|
|
|
The negative trust is about as ridiculous as the notion that anyone who is familiar with Vod will take his opinions seriously.
This is one more example as to why the trust system has become worthless, along with the fact that the admins will not step in to address a situation in which there is very clearly no trade dispute, nor any attempt/plan to steal money/property from others.
The world is not flat, and there is substantial evidence to back it up. The appropriate course of action would be to present said evidence, not attempt to silence the OP via a negative rating. And yes a negative rating is very much an attempt to silence the OP, especially in this case.
|
|
|
What's the excuse now for not conducting an investigation?
IDK, maybe the fact that news outlets with a heavy left leaning bias, such as the New York Times, the Washington post, and NBC news declined to run the story because of a lack of corroboration. The New Yorker story is based on hearsay from unnamed source (singular), and multiple people who would have knowledge of the party are on the record saying it didn’t happen. I would not take anything the creepy porn lawyer says seriously. If you are the victim of a crime, especially a serious crime, I would suggest not retaining his services because I won’t take any evidence seriously and will go into hearing your story as being made up for political purposes.
|
|
|
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is currently in a meeting at the White House with chief of staff General Kelly, immediately prior to which, he was expecting to be fired. There are reports that he was planning on Resigning with the details to be ironed out today.
All of this comes on the heels of a NY times article that says that former former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe had written memos saying that Rosenstein had discussed wearing a wire while speaking with President Trump and try to get Trumps cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment. Sources say that he did say this but in jest as pushback against McCabe.
Update: it appears this is fake news and Rosenstein is still deputy Attorney General. There is a meeting with Trump scheduled for this Thursday.
|
|
|
|