Your question is a strawman. Where did I make any claim to feeling more qualified than Mitchell? This is a discussion board where you have shared your thoughts multiple times and people responded, agreeing or disagreeing with you, and they did so without resorting to fallacies to avoid addressing what you wrote. Your choice not to address what I wrote. Fine by me. People ignore my comments a lot. Some have me on ignore. No biggie. But if you are going to engage in fallacious reasoning to avoid answering, you should expect a response addressing it.
Nothing to do with Mutz. I just have a problem with the claim that the person you want to be right must be right. It doesn't really take much analysis, does it?
Sounds like I triggered you. I was simply pointing out that you were trying to dissect and discredit a veteran prosecutor’s work without any credentials (that I know of) to speak about. If you’re going to engage in armchair sex crimes prosecuting, you should expect a response addressing it.
The whole Mitchell thing is a perfect straw man, and really smart by the pubs. He is not on trial, and no one rational would think he could be convicted of an alleged crime from 35 years ago that has no witnesses and no physical evidence. This is a giant job interview - the simple question is whether he can be trusted with a Supreme Court Seat, and stories continue to come out ( another one tonight) that completely wreck his innocent fun jock virgin defense. And his “frat boy been wronged” persona the other day only lends credence to all of this. For the first time, I think his nomination could be in trouble.
She has the credentials. If you have a problem with the fact the GOP picked her, I might suggest you check the scoreboard and next time not leave the GOP with a supermajority. Until then, they get to make these calls. She is highly qualified and her breakdown is not chalk full of hysterics. Well laid out and to the point.
@rivergator must protect me and other of like mind otherwise cons would crush us...so says some of those among the exodus...
If we're going to appeal to authority, two prosecutors > one prosecutor. I posted two articles from prosecutors earlier calling out Mitchell for her disingenuous memo. It was a partisan memo written for the people employing her . . . the GOP.
OMG!!! I was 100% on board with Kavanaugh until I saw this. He was QUESTIONED about a bar fight in 1985!!!!!!!!! OH. MY. GOD. He’s done now. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Breaking news on MSNBC. Kav’s ole buddy Squi. Yeah, that’s the one. Pulled the fire alarm one day at school during 5th grade. The walls are closing in!!!!!!!
Let me ask, what credentials in your mind are necessary for someone to be able to critically assess Mitchell's observations and inferences?
She never quite got around to discussing inconsistencies in Kavenaugh's testimony though. Only the issues she saw in the accuser's testimony. Why is that do you think?
I think you realize that she shredded Ford and want to change the subject. Moving the goal posts, as Mr. McConnell said today.
If you are going to be overly dismissive and sarcastic, at least do it after reading my subsequent post. The point isn’t that he got in a bar fight, it’s that every story that comes out further damages the image he tried to craft at the hearing. We have numerous people now essentially calling him a liar. And this after his belligerence this week, which only makes all of the claims more plausible. If you think that a woman senator already on the fence is going to hold her nose and blindly vote for a guy like that, I can only say that I guess we will see. Maybe yes, maybe no, but each of these stories knocks a brick out of his foundation. It’s a bad slow drip for him.
No, just wondered if you would be honest and acknowledge that it was a one-sided assessment written to please her employers.
