csyphrett Posted September 19, 2018 Report Share Posted September 19, 2018 9 hours ago, Badger said: Even if I had no other reason, I am leery of him winning that. I fear, it'll give every clubhouse cancer who gets cut when their conduct finally becomes too much, the go ahead to sue their league. On the other hand, if he can prove that the League got together to blacklist him then the league should not be doing that. I think somebody said he was the third best quarterback in stats out of everybody playing. It's either about his conduct, or his playing ability. The league said it wasn't about his conduct, but it was about his playing ability. In my opinion they should have just come out and said they didn't want him protesting policemen shooting unarmed civilians and stuck to their guns. CES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
death tribble Posted September 19, 2018 Report Share Posted September 19, 2018 The answer to Lucius's question is Ron Jeremy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted September 19, 2018 Report Share Posted September 19, 2018 Chuck Grassley's explanation for why the Senate can't have the FBI go investigate her claim before voting to confirm Kavanaugh. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/grassley-explains-the-fbi-cant-investigate-claim-in-letter-to-kavanaugh-accusers-attorney/ Essentially, the FBI doesn't answer to the Senate, so the Senate can't have the FBI go do anything. It isn't the FBI's job to validate nominees, just the Senate. Of course, if there is no investigation, we are left with he-said-she-said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 7 hours ago, death tribble said: The answer to Lucius's question is Ron Jeremy What question? 2 hours ago, Sociotard said: Chuck Grassley's explanation for why the Senate can't have the FBI go investigate her claim before voting to confirm Kavanaugh. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/grassley-explains-the-fbi-cant-investigate-claim-in-letter-to-kavanaugh-accusers-attorney/ Essentially, the FBI doesn't answer to the Senate, so the Senate can't have the FBI go do anything. It isn't the FBI's job to validate nominees, just the Senate. Of course, if there is no investigation, we are left with he-said-she-said. I thought I read that there was a witness, someone else who was in the room at the time? Lucius Alexander the palindromedary wasn't there and doesn't know Mr. Jeremy either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Lucius said: What question? I thought I read that there was a witness, someone else who was in the room at the time? Two witnesses, at least one of whom is being represented by Trump's personal lawyer and is refusing to testify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 4 hours ago, Sociotard said: Chuck Grassley's explanation for why the Senate can't have the FBI go investigate her claim before voting to confirm Kavanaugh. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/grassley-explains-the-fbi-cant-investigate-claim-in-letter-to-kavanaugh-accusers-attorney/ Essentially, the FBI doesn't answer to the Senate, so the Senate can't have the FBI go do anything. It isn't the FBI's job to validate nominees, just the Senate. Of course, if there is no investigation, we are left with he-said-she-said. So who's responsible for all the investigations of Hillary Clinton's old emails? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 The FBI, but not at the whim of the legislature. And the FBI may yet investigate the Kavanaugh assault claim, but not at the whim of the Senate. Starlord 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 The Maryland PD could also investigate, fwiw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranxerox Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Sociotard said: The FBI, but not at the whim of the legislature. And the FBI may yet investigate the Kavanaugh assault claim, but not at the whim of the Senate. 5 hours ago, Sociotard said: Chuck Grassley's explanation for why the Senate can't have the FBI go investigate her claim before voting to confirm Kavanaugh. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/grassley-explains-the-fbi-cant-investigate-claim-in-letter-to-kavanaugh-accusers-attorney/ Essentially, the FBI doesn't answer to the Senate, so the Senate can't have the FBI go do anything. It isn't the FBI's job to validate nominees, just the Senate. Of course, if there is no investigation, we are left with he-said-she-said. This is BS. Yes, the Senate can't "order" the FBI to investigate on their behalf, but they can request such an investigation and in the normal course of events such a request would be granted, Chuck Grassley isn't requesting because he doesn't want the investigations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 What is the statute of limitations on sexual assault anyway? Wasn't that the problem with investigating most of Cosby's attacks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland, where the crimes were committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 Uh oh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 Only if law enforcement happens to, like, investigate or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 13 hours ago, Sociotard said: Of course, if there is no investigation, we are left with he-said-she-said. Wouldn't we be left with she-said-he-was-too-drunk-to-remember?? ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 We'd be left with 2 "too drunk to remember"s and 1 "remembers, but with so few details it is difficult to corroborate" I absolutely accept that the lack of detail is partly due to the trauma of the event, and I empathize with any woman who is reluctant to put those details forward, but that still leaves us with a weak case. The only advantage she (and Kavanaugh's political opponents) have is that this isn't a criminal case, and they don't need "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". They just need "Substantial Evidence" or maybe "Preponderance of the Evidence" I'm just not sure they have that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 17 hours ago, Old Man said: The Maryland PD could also investigate, fwiw. Honestly, it would be an odd thing for the FBI to investigate because the allegation, even if true, isn't a federal crime. The way that the FBI would get involved in a local crime is normally that the local law enforcement agency cannot conduct an effective investigation because much of the investigation would need to happen in another state or internationally. In those cases, local law enforcement would have to invite the FBI to join in or take over the investigation. There's no inability of local law enforcement to conduct an investigation and there's been no invitation from local law enforcement for the FBI to come in and take over an investigation. Starlord, Sociotard and TrickstaPriest 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 Good point! I hadn't considered that angle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Sociotard said: We'd be left with 2 "too drunk to remember"s and 1 "remembers, but with so few details it is difficult to corroborate" I absolutely accept that the lack of detail is partly due to the trauma of the event, and I empathize with any woman who is reluctant to put those details forward, but that still leaves us with a weak case. The only advantage she (and Kavanaugh's political opponents) have is that this isn't a criminal case, and they don't need "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". They just need "Substantial Evidence" or maybe "Preponderance of the Evidence" I'm just not sure they have that. They don't even need that much. "It's possible that the guy might be a slimeball" is the level of 'evidence' they need in order to convince Senators to not put their career on the line to vote someone in who might later turn out to be a slimeball if they think there's a real chance he might be guilty. Honestly, as rancorous as partisan politics has become in this country. I'm pleasantly surprised that there aren't false accusations made against every person who is nominated for any post (regardless of which party is in power at any point in time). It seems like such an easy way to smear someone. Nobody has an iron-clad alibi for some random day 40 years ago when they were a teenager. Most of the adults from back then are dead, many of the rest don't have a functioning memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted September 20, 2018 Report Share Posted September 20, 2018 Elon Musk commits to sending Japanese billionaire on a trip around the moon. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45550755 Is there no national pride left in the good ole USA? Why are we not sending an American billionaire to the moon? The president comes to mind as an ideal candidate. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted September 21, 2018 Report Share Posted September 21, 2018 1 hour ago, archer said: Elon Musk commits to sending Japanese billionaire on a trip around the moon. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45550755 Is there no national pride left in the good ole USA? Why are we not sending an American billionaire to the moon? The president comes to mind as an ideal candidate. Do we have to bring him back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted September 21, 2018 Report Share Posted September 21, 2018 I don’t think he’s actually a billionaire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted September 21, 2018 Report Share Posted September 21, 2018 21 minutes ago, Old Man said: I don’t think he’s actually a billionaire. I don't either but for the purposes of the conversation, I don't think we should rule him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted September 21, 2018 Report Share Posted September 21, 2018 If it would get him to leave, we could all chip in to pay him until he is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted September 21, 2018 Report Share Posted September 21, 2018 On 9/19/2018 at 1:24 PM, csyphrett said: On the other hand, if he can prove that the League got together to blacklist him then the league should not be doing that. I think somebody said he was the third best quarterback in stats out of everybody playing. It's either about his conduct, or his playing ability. The league said it wasn't about his conduct, but it was about his playing ability. In my opinion they should have just come out and said they didn't want him protesting policemen shooting unarmed civilians and stuck to their guns. CES Well, I don't know how they get 3rd best in the league. His last season had pretty solid stats, albeit the 49ers were pretty much Browns-lite that year, so it is hard to separate garbage time and all. He was low-end starter/high-end backup level. Definitely better than a lot of QBs in the league (if he was a backup he probably would one of the 5 best backups in the league). So, yeah the protests is why he is out of the league. But, you could name dozens of good players in the league who are headaches for their teams, that if they were that low end starter/high end backup type of talent would probably be gone ASAP (or traded to the Raiders). That is why I worry, I do think a team should be to sever relations from players who are more trouble than they are worth (pending how the contract rules in the league go) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted September 21, 2018 Report Share Posted September 21, 2018 On 9/19/2018 at 11:21 PM, Pariah said: So who's responsible for all the investigations of Hillary Clinton's old emails? *waves hand* "These aren't the emails, you're looking for" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.