The Supreme Court

[bune]

That last paragraph? I don't see how that shows her doing anything other than trying to keep this letter under wraps until other Democrats made it public on their own.

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part. Look at it this way; if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself (assuming that wasn’t the original source of the story). Either way she is smart and clearly realized the political value of the information and held it close.

Allegedly, Buzzfeed was able to identify the woman when the rumors stated last week, which itself suggests a level of legitimacy to the accusation.

Aren't you, like, kind of presupposing bad intentions? This "let's make up a narrative in our head" does work both ways, you know.

[McParadigm]

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part.

That is presupposing, yes.

if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself

That is presupposing, yes.

More realistically, she probably saw releasing a letter by someone who didn’t want to come forward as likely to blow back, and a distraction from other (roe or other) arguments.

[Bi_3]

That last paragraph? I don't see how that shows her doing anything other than trying to keep this letter under wraps until other Democrats made it public on their own.

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part. Look at it this way; if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself (assuming that wasn’t the original source of the story). Either way she is smart and clearly realized the political value of the information and held it close.

Allegedly, Buzzfeed was able to identify the woman when the rumors stated last week, which itself suggests a level of legitimacy to the accusation.

Aren't you, like, kind of presupposing bad intentions? This "let's make up a narrative in our head" does work both ways, you know.

I am. But I would point to the long history of Senators being politicians as the reason why.

[B]

That last paragraph? I don't see how that shows her doing anything other than trying to keep this letter under wraps until other Democrats made it public on their own.

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part. Look at it this way; if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself (assuming that wasn’t the original source of the story). Either way she is smart and clearly realized the political value of the information and held it close.

Allegedly, Buzzfeed was able to identify the woman when the rumors stated last week, which itself suggests a level of legitimacy to the accusation.

Aren't you, like, kind of presupposing bad intentions? This "let's make up a narrative in our head" does work both ways, you know.

I am. But I would point to the long history of Senators being politicians as the reason why.

[bune]

That last paragraph? I don't see how that shows her doing anything other than trying to keep this letter under wraps until other Democrats made it public on their own.

Because you are presupposing good intentions on her part. Look at it this way; if it leaked she could play it as “I was defending the desires of the victim” and if it didn’t she could swoop in at the last second and leak it herself (assuming that wasn’t the original source of the story). Either way she is smart and clearly realized the political value of the information and held it close.

Allegedly, Buzzfeed was able to identify the woman when the rumors stated last week, which itself suggests a level of legitimacy to the accusation.

Aren't you, like, kind of presupposing bad intentions? This "let's make up a narrative in our head" does work both ways, you know.

I am. But I would point to the long history of Senators being politicians as the reason why.

[96583UP]

well hopefully the Trump FBI will take this review seriously and leave no corner unturned in the pursuit of truth:

- was she hot
- was she dressed like she wanted it

[simple schoolboy]

Wait, Feinstein gets the benefit of the doubt? Why tho?

[B]

Wait, Feinstein gets the benefit of the doubt? Why tho?

Welcome to the debate of the last two pages!

[epilogue]

Wait, Feinstein gets the benefit of the doubt? Why tho?

Welcome to the debate of the last two pages!

Guys, who cares? Like trag said, you can rape whomever you want if you're in high school.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[epilogue]

My point was that if the goal was to end his confirmation, a high school rape accusation is a useless way to go about it.

trag

[Bi_3]

My point was that if the goal was to end his confirmation, a high school rape accusation is a useless way to go about it.

It could very well change the votes of the female pro-choice republicans in the senate, which was the point of the maneuver

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[96583UP]

i wonder how many senators have raped somebody

probably at least 20

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[96583UP]

current

all time is prob like 1,865

[BurtReynolds]

You've been visited by Magic Mitch The Cocaine Turtle. Share immediately to kill Ruth Bader Ginsberg and install another right wing supreme court justice.

[LetMeSleep]

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/fac ... ishing-it/

Editor’s note: On September 9, Think Progress published an article by Ian Millhiser that made text out of the subtext of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, describing how the Supreme Court nominee, in a fairly straightforward legal analysis, had revealed his belief that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. That legal analysis, the article noted, matched comments Kavanaugh had made in a speech in 2017. “Kavanaugh’s 2017 speech, when laid alongside a statement he made during his confirmation hearing, eliminates any doubt that he opposes Roe,” Millhiser wrote. Facebook, meanwhile, had empowered the right-wing outlet the Weekly Standard to “fact check” articles. The Weekly Standard, invested in Kavanaugh’s confirmation, deemed the Think Progress article “false.” The story was effectively nuked from Facebook, with other outlets threatened with traffic and monetary consequences if they shared it. The story is republished below, with permission from Think Progress, though not from Facebook or the Weekly Standard.

[BurtReynolds]

Let the censorship wars commence!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... naugh.html

the consequences could be quite severe for left-leaning outlets generally—or potentially for any other outlet which publishes a news article that The Weekly Standard disagrees with.

Wow, internet censors censoring things they don't like? WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING?! The Left would never do something like this!