Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 17, 2018

OTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt

Kavanaugh described the baseball tickets as part of a group purchase divided amongst friends and avid Washington Nationals fans. Kavanaugh estimated he has attended “a couple hundred games” over the period of 2005 through 2017, when he purchased four season tickets, and also playoff ticket packages for the four years the Nationals reached the National League playoffs.

“I have attended all 11 Nationals home playoff games in their history,” Kavanaugh noted in his answers. “(We are 3-8 in those games.)”
His rationale for the tickets: “I am a huge sports fan.”

Beyond his baseball fandom, Kavanaugh noted in response to questions that has “not had gambling debts or participated in ‘fantasy’ leagues.”

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 17, 2018 at 09:05 AM | 2479 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, off topic, politics, washington

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 24 of 25 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24 25 > 
   2301. . Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5750212)
No. It says one person (who wasn't present) mentioned this alleged incident. It says that Kavanaugh's classmates were talking about his "college behavior," not about this alleged incident. If you actually were a lawyer, you'd learn to read more carefully.


You've always been a bit of a peculiar weirdo on here, and your peculiarities in this recent thread -- wherein among other peculiarities, you think it isn't a crime to go up to a woman and whip out your dick in her face -- pretty much seal the deal.
   2302. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:18 PM (#5750213)
It’s immoral and sinful to stick your #### in the face of a drunk teenager in the middle of a crowded dorm room.
Assuming the story is true, if the fact that she was a drunk teenager is somehow relevant, why isn't the fact that he was also a drunk teenager equally relevant?

I am certainly not saying it was couth behavior. I am saying that I don't care whether a drunk teenager engaged in uncouth behavior, especially not decades ago. (As opposed to attempted rape, which is a whole 'nother level.)
   2303. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:18 PM (#5750214)
So if it turns out Ford doesn’t testify Thursday because Kavanaugh is toast by then, does Clapper get credit for being right?
   2304. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:19 PM (#5750215)
Davo, #2296--
Anyone know, did Kavanaugh convert to Catholicism or was he raised in the faith?


He seems like more of a devoted snake handler.

I assume Kavanaugh's favorite Bible verse is "Be not among drunkards, among riotous eaters of flesh."
   2305. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:20 PM (#5750216)
2298- I’m saying, Farrow is talking to another woman (and it’s close to publishable), so with Avenatti’s story, that would be....4 women now? And counting?

It also in a way confirms my suspicions from when his team so quickly produced that letter signed by a bunch of alumni who swore he never raped them even once. People asked “why would they have a letter like that just on hand?” but I thought the answer was obvious: DC politicos know which of the guys on the Hill are rapey, and Kavanaugh was one of them, so they got the letter drawn up just in case.

(I mean, it’s an insular crew. I’m sure they also know which guys have gambling issues, which ones have drinking problems, which ones are closeted gays, etc.)
   2306. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:20 PM (#5750217)

wherein among other peculiarities, you think it isn't a crime to go up to a woman and whip out your dick in her face -- pretty much seal the deal.
Says the person who thinks treason is perfectly fine.
   2307. BrianBrianson Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:22 PM (#5750219)
Seven is too old to be whipping your dick out in social situations. You should've knocked him on his ass two years ago.
   2308. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:22 PM (#5750220)
You're not as bad a lawyer as FLTB, but you're pretty bad. You somehow ignored the elements I've boldfaced.


Sticking your dick in someone's face *is* a use of force.
   2309. Tin Angel Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:23 PM (#5750221)
I am saying that I don't care whether a drunk teenager engaged in uncouth behavior, especially not decades ago.


This is just insane. "Yeah, some dude shoved his dick in my daughter's face, but that was decades ago! Who cares?"
   2310. BDC Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:26 PM (#5750224)
Hey, I mentioned it 42 posts before him


Have a Coke, then. Heck, have a Jack and Coke, you sound like you need it :)
   2311. . Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:26 PM (#5750225)
Says the person who thinks treason is perfectly fine.


Like, apparently, Kavanaugh, you're exposing yourself.

And your utterance looks like an idea, only smaller.
   2312. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:26 PM (#5750226)
We ought to note the intro that preceded the allegations set forth in #2240 since it seems to have been omitted for obvious reasons:
She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,

After 6 days of prompting her memory improves? Isn't it a bit strange that the only people with claims against Kavanaugh have flimsy stories with no corroboration?
   2313. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:27 PM (#5750227)
I expect David to pop his head out in China by morning.
   2314. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:27 PM (#5750228)

Sticking your dick in someone's face *is* a use of force.
No. I mean, literally sticking it "in their face" yes. But holding it in front of their face, no, it isn't.
   2315. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:28 PM (#5750229)
Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversation with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh's nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

Ah, the Grand Ole Party.
   2316. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:31 PM (#5750230)
No. I mean, literally sticking it "in their face" yes. But holding it in front of their face, no, it isn't.


and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. "


How is it possible that you're dying on this hill?
   2317. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:31 PM (#5750231)
2302 David Nieporent Assuming the story is true, if the fact that she was a drunk teenager is somehow relevant, why isn't the fact that he was also a drunk teenager equally relevant?

I am certainly not saying it was couth behavior. I am saying that I don't care whether a drunk teenager engaged in uncouth behavior, especially not decades ago.

You don't care if one of the Supreme Court justices is an unrepentant (and even unapologetic) sinner? You don't care that he stuck his dick in a woman's face and then lied about it and called her the liar? Hm.

What qualities are important for you in a Supreme Court justice?
   2318. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:33 PM (#5750232)

This is just insane. "Yeah, some dude shoved his dick in my daughter's face, but that was decades ago! Who cares?"
My daughter's nine, so I'm not quite sure how those logistics would work. Now, if decades from now I find out that someone did that to my daughter when she was nine, I would indeed be quite upset. But if in 39 years I find out that it happened when she was 18 and he was 18 and they were playing a drinking game in college, yeah, who cares.

Have people completely lost any sense of perspective? Holding grudges over 30-year old drunken horseplay in college? Especially that involved nobody getting hurt? You think that would be sane?
   2319. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:36 PM (#5750233)
Have people completely lost any sense of perspective? Holding grudges over 30-year old drunken horseplay in college? Especially that involved nobody getting hurt? You think that would be sane?


You know, I thought the victim smearing was the low for this thread, but this is a new low.
   2320. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:37 PM (#5750234)

It also in a way confirms my suspicions from when his team so quickly produced that letter signed by a bunch of alumni who swore he never raped them even once. People asked “why would they have a letter like that just on hand?” but I thought the answer was obvious: DC politicos know which of the guys on the Hill are rapey, and Kavanaugh was one of them, so they got the letter drawn up just in case.
Again: we know that this is a lie, both from the obvious fact that Kavanaugh has never raped anyone and from the fact that the people who produced up the letter -- not his team -- said they pulled it together after Ford's allegations were publicized. They did not have it on hand.


You don't care if one of the Supreme Court justices is an unrepentant (and even unapologetic) sinner? You don't care that he stuck his dick in a woman's face and then lied about it and called her the liar? Hm.
Speaking of sin, what is it when one repeatedly calls someone a rapist when one knows that to be false?
   2321. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:38 PM (#5750235)
You know, I thought the victim smearing was the low for this thread, but this is a new low.
I agree, though probably not in the way you mean.


EDIT: Talking about "victim smearing" is pretty low, too, though, given that this never happened.
   2322. GregD Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:39 PM (#5750236)
Avenatti responds to committee's request for info

“We are aware of multiple house parties in the DC area during the early 1980s at which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a “train” of men to subsequently gang rape them. There are multiple witnesses who will corroborate these facts”
   2323. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:39 PM (#5750237)
Again: we know that this is a lie, both from the obvious fact that Kavanaugh has never raped anyone and from the fact that the people who produced up the letter -- not his team -- said they pulled it together after Ford's allegations were publicized. They did not have it on hand.


Here's Avenetti's list of questions.

Should be careful with those statements.

   2324. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:40 PM (#5750238)
After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that “ ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown Prep with women.” Rasor stressed that “under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t reveal information that was told in confidence,” but, she said, “I can’t stand by and watch him lie.” In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, “Mark told me a very different story.” Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge’s protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown Prep.
   2325. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:41 PM (#5750239)
Holding grudges over 30-year old drunken horseplay in college


Hey ... you want to know what I never did in college?

(and college was 89-93, so about the same time)

STICK MY DICK IN A WOMAN'S FACE WITHOUT PERMISSION.
   2326. Mike A Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:41 PM (#5750240)
“We are aware of multiple house parties in the DC area during the early 1980s at which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a “train” of men to subsequently gang rape them. There are multiple witnesses who will corroborate these facts”

Well, that's bombshell #2 tonight. Avenatti is a grandstander, but if he has any credible evidence Kavanaugh is beyond toast.
   2327. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:45 PM (#5750241)

Of course if Avenatti has credible evidence then Kavanaugh is toast. That... doesn't sound like Avenatti has credible evidence. I guess we'll find out.
   2328. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:45 PM (#5750242)
I suppose I can understand someone not caring that Brett Kavanaugh stuck his dick in the face of a teenager at a dorm party. It was 30 years ago, and I guess sexual libertines might not think it's a big deal.

But lying about it (and also lying about the attempted rape of Professor Ford)--he's doing those things now! How could you still not care whether he's lying or not?
   2329. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:45 PM (#5750243)
We are aware of multiple house parties in the DC area during the early 1980s at which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a “train” of men to subsequently gang rape them.


Unfortunately, not a suburban legend.... but I wouldn't truat Avenatti as far as I could throw him.
   2330. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:46 PM (#5750244)
The chances that Ford testifies Thursday are looking increasingly unlikely.
   2331. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:50 PM (#5750246)
I suppose I can understand someone not caring that Brett Kavanaugh stuck his dick in the face of a teenager at a dorm party. It was 30 years ago, and I guess sexual libertines might not think it's a big deal.

But lying about it (and also lying about the attempted rape of Professor Ford)--he's doing those things now! How could you still not care whether he's lying or not?
Given the first paragraph, I'm not sure who this post could be addressed to, other than me. But it does not accurately characterize my position. I said days ago that if Kavanaugh is lying about it (the Ford incident) now it's disqualifying. It would be doubly disqualifying, in fact -- disqualifying as a character issue, and disqualifying because his lies would be perjury or otherwise illegal.

EDIT: The same would apply to this new allegation, even though I think the allegation itself is a (to use the current vernacular) nothingburger. Although he has not yet denied it under oath, so it wouldn't be a crime yet.
   2332. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:56 PM (#5750247)
You know, I thought the victim smearing was the low for this thread, but this is a new low.

Does anyone do faux outrage worse than tshipman? He must spend all day at his personal fainting couch. People come forward with flimsy stories, and Little Lord Tshipman objects to anyone pointing out how flimsy they are? Thousands of people testify under oath in courtrooms and legislative chambers across America every day without getting the special treatment being demanded for Team Blue's favored but flawed duo.
   2333. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:59 PM (#5750248)
Although he has not yet denied it under oath, so it wouldn't be a crime yet.


Now that's a winning strategy.

"Senator Hirono, when you asked me if I had ever harassed anyone, I did not think of the incident where I stuck my dick in someone's face and did not move until they pushed me away as harassment. It's just natural horseplay."
   2334. zenbitz Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:59 PM (#5750249)
I don't see what all the fuss is about. The Democrats tried this nonsense with Gorsuch and that never went anywhere...
   2335. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5750250)
Avenatti is a grandstander, but if he has any credible evidence Kavanaugh is beyond toast.

If Avenatti has credible evidence, he brings his witnesses to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where they'd be interviewed by bipartisan investigators and submit sworn affidavits. I very much doubt Avenatti will do that, because his clients would then be subject to prosecution for false statements. Instead, he will issue statements and hold press conferences, and some saps will eat it up without question. Do you really want to be that dumb?
   2336. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5750251)
It's not harassment if the person is unconscious.
   2337. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:07 PM (#5750254)
The falldown, blackout, ####-faced drunk part of this story needs to be remembered, even if Kavenaugh cannot. The Jekyll-Hyde behavior that results is pretty common.

I told you he was a shithead.
   2338. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:11 PM (#5750255)
Yankee Clapper, #2332, #2335:
People come forward with flimsy stories... Some saps will eat it up without question. Do you really want to be that dumb?


Ed Whelan:
Who lived in this house? Chris Garrett, a Georgetown prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh's.
...
Folks who knew both Kavanaugh and Garrett in high school have commented on how much they ressmbled each other in appearance.
...
Bottom line: I believe that a fair assessment of this evidence powerfully supports Judge Kavanaugh's categorical denial.
   2339. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:11 PM (#5750256)
Do you really want to be that dumb?


A question I wonder often about the President, his GOP enablers, and Trumpkins like yourself.
   2340. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:11 PM (#5750257)

I told you he was a shithead.
Well, I told you that you were, and at least I've interacted with you, unlike you with him.
   2341. TVerik. Old Java Rodney. Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:15 PM (#5750259)
If Avenatti has credible evidence, he brings his witnesses to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where they'd be interviewed by bipartisan investigators and submit sworn affidavits. I very much doubt Avenatti will do that, because his clients would then be subject to prosecution for false statements. Instead, he will issue statements and hold press conferences, and some saps will eat it up without question. Do you really want to be that dumb?


Or the accusers and their loved ones will look for FIVE MINUTES at what was done to Ford and her name in the last two weeks and not want any of that for them.
   2342. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:17 PM (#5750260)
Seems pretty thin, a vague drunken memory that Kavanaugh pulled a Bill Clinton 35-years ago, with denials by many. It's not even clear that the Democrats are going to stand behind this. Hirono seems to be taking the lead, I wouldn't think the least effective Democrat on the Committee would have a prominent role if the Dems thought it was going to hold up. Lots of guilt by association, too, attempting to hold Kavanaugh responsible for others behavior. There's even a quote from someone who went to high school "in the same county".

Cokes if appropriate to anyone else who's posted this:

Senate Judiciary panel’s top Democrat calls for delay in Kavanaugh hearing after new allegation
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called late Sunday for a delay in further consideration of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh after a second woman accused him of sexual misconduct.

“I am writing to request an immediate postponement of any further proceedings related to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the committee’s GOP chairman.

Her letter came after the New Yorker magazine reported that Debbie Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, said he exposing himself at a party when they were both first-year students.

Ramirez, who told the magazine that they both had been drinking at the time of the incident, acknowledged some gaps in her memory but said she remembered another student shouting Kavanaugh’s name.

“I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” Ramirez said. ...

Clapper will now just change "the least effective Democrat on the Committee" to "the ranking Democrat on the Committee" without skipping a beat.
   2343. BrianBrianson Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:18 PM (#5750261)
David, in all seriousness, when you see a crowd of rats fleeing the ship, give serious consideration to following them.
   2344. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:19 PM (#5750262)

If Kavanaugh is "rapey" as Davos contends, and so much so that everyone in Washington knows it (as he also contends), why is everything -- including Avenatti's almost certain fabrications -- about stuff from 35 or more years ago? Where's the law clerk or junior associate at Kirkland or the low-level White House staffer claiming that he harassed or touched her?
   2345. Srul Itza At Home Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:19 PM (#5750263)
I am 63 years old.

I have been to all kinds of parties throughout my life.

In the 60's and 70's they involved every manner of intoxicant at every level, involving people at every stage of maturity.

I have seen all manner of odd, uncouth, unusual and unexpected behavior.

Never have I seen, or have I heard of, anyone "whipping it out" in the middle of the party and displaying it to the opposite sex.

Such behavior is far beyond anything that would pass as normal or acceptable.

Any attempt to "normalize" it, as is being made here, speaks volumes about the person doing so.

Talk about "defining deviancy down."
   2346. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:24 PM (#5750266)
That’s why we have a penis code
   2347. Howie Menckel Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:26 PM (#5750267)
I just want to thank GregD for a pair of responses to me in sort of the "Quaker" version of this thread.

I don't have much to offer in the current maelstrom, alas.
   2348. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:26 PM (#5750268)

I am 63 years old.

I have been to all kinds of parties throughout my life.

In the 60's and 70's they involved every manner of intoxicant at every level,
Quick math says that you didn't even turn 13 until 1968. What the hell kind of bar mitzvah reception did you have?
   2349. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:28 PM (#5750269)
Winners:
Ronan Farrow
Amy Coney Barrett
Whoever's been churning out the boring bimonthly Class of 1990 section of Yale Alumni Magazine

Losers:
Susan Collins
Lisa Murkowski
Dr. Ford, who has to suffer an intolerable delay in her scheduled hearing
   2350. Mike A Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:28 PM (#5750270)
Instead, he will issue statements and hold press conferences, and some saps will eat it up without question. Do you really want to be that dumb?

Hey, that's why I put the caveat about Avenatti in there. Of course we have to take his statements with a grain of salt. He's PT Barnum in lawyer clothing.

But...it's not like his Stormy Daniels story was all made up, was it?

And Judge's ex said that he told her once about an incident at Georgetown Prep where 'he and other boys took turns having sex with a drunk woman.'

It's all gonna shake out this week one way or the other.
   2351. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:29 PM (#5750271)
It looks like Senator Feinstein is seeking to leverage Ms. Ramirez's unsworn, untimely, uncorroborated and unproven allegations as a pretext to allow Ms. Ford to avoid testifying on her own unsworn, untimely, uncorroborated and unproven allegations. She's now requesting that Thursday's hearing be postponed. I suspect it won't be long before Ford announces that she can't go forward while other claims are unaddressed. Don't say I didn't warn you.
   2352. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:29 PM (#5750272)
2344-Forthcoming, presumably. Or perhaps he got less rapey as he got older.
   2353. Srul Itza At Home Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:30 PM (#5750273)
caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away


So, Justice DMN, explain again why this would not constitute assault?

Assuming you really are a lawyer.
   2354. strong silence Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:30 PM (#5750274)
Christine Blasey Ford testifies.
The Senate confirms Kavanaugh.
The FBI opens an investigation into sexual assault or attempted rape by Kavanaugh.

This series of events would be so, so...juicy.

But wouldn't embarrass Clapper.
   2355. strong silence Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:34 PM (#5750276)
What qualities are important for you in a Supreme Court justice?

Decency has to be in the top 5 of anyone's list. So far, Kavanaugh hasn't show much of this.
   2356. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:34 PM (#5750277)
#HOTTAKE: Guys shouldn't stick their dick into the face of unsuspecting women.
   2357. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:37 PM (#5750279)
I do think at this point that they need to have more witnesses at his hearing. They need to call everyone who someone claims to have firsthand knowledge of Kavanaugh's conduct during these two incidents. That would be (on the one hand) Ford, who says she has known for 36 years that Kavanaugh attacked her but never mentioned it, and Ramirez, who was admittedly so drunk that she remembers little and claims not to have been sure until talking to a lawyer this week that Kavanaugh was the offender 35 years ago). And (on the other) lots of lots of people who Ford and Ramirez have identified but who deny that they saw Kavanaugh do anything wrong. Let Ford and Ramirez be cross-examined. The former, I have no idea how she'll come across; the latter, based on the New Yorker piece, will be torn to shreds. Then let Kavanaugh be equally strongly cross-examined. We'll see how credible he seems.
   2358. strong silence Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:39 PM (#5750280)
IANAL. What is the purpose of the law? Is promoting and ensuring justice not one of the primary purposes of the law?

Educate me.

EDIT: And what is the reason for having a statute of limitations? If memories can lapse or be buried for years should SOLs be eliminated?
   2359. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:43 PM (#5750282)

So, Justice DMN, explain again why this would not constitute assault?
You shove me away from you because you feel uncomfortable with how close I am standing, and you think that constitutes me assaulting you?
   2360. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:45 PM (#5750283)
2282. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 08:57 PM (#5750191)
Seems pretty thin, a vague drunken memory that Kavanaugh pulled a Bill Clinton 35-years ago, with denials by many. It's not even clear that the Democrats are going to stand behind this. Hirono seems to be taking the lead, I wouldn't think the least effective Democrat on the Committee would have a prominent role if the Dems thought it was going to hold up. Lots of guilt by association, too, attempting to hold Kavanaugh responsible for others behavior. There's even a quote from someone who went to high school "in the same county".

2342. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:17 PM (#5750260)
Clapper will now just change "the least effective Democrat on the Committee" to "the ranking Democrat on the Committee" without skipping a beat.


2351. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:29 PM (#5750271)
It looks like Senator Feinstein is seeking to leverage Ms. Ramirez's unsworn, untimely, uncorroborated and unproven allegations as a pretext to allow Ms. Ford to avoid testifying on her own unsworn, untimely, uncorroborated and unproven allegations. She's now requesting that Thursday's hearing be postponed. I suspect it won't be long before Ford announces that she can't go forward while other claims are unaddressed. Don't say I didn't warn you.

So wait, we can't call Judge to the stand because he denies Ford's story, and we can't call Ramirez to testify because.....????

Ah, hell, let's just get the RNC's 100 biggest women contributors, and we'll let them cast a vote and settle this whole thing once and for all.

   2361. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:48 PM (#5750284)
You shove me away from you because you feel uncomfortable with how close I am standing, and you think that constitutes me assaulting you?

Shorter DMN: that's largely her fault.
   2362. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:48 PM (#5750285)
Ramirez, who was admittedly so drunk that she remembers little and claims not to have been sure until talking to a lawyer this week that Kavanaugh was the offender 35 years ago

35 years later she wasn't sure, but 35 years and 6 days later she was. Happens all the time.
   2363. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:50 PM (#5750287)
Christine Blasey Ford testifies.
The Senate confirms Kavanaugh.
The FBI opens an investigation into sexual assault or attempted rape by Kavanaugh.

This series of events would be so, so...juicy.
Not clear on how you think the FBI would have any role to play in investigating an alleged local crime. There's no SOL, so the Montgomery County PD could investigate, though it would be awfully tough without a place or date other than "probably the summer of 1982." Might be a bit tough to prove BARD. I mean, I guess the FBI could investigate whether Kavanaugh lied to them, but that would add yet another layer of problem; not only would they have to prove the attempted rape BARD, but they would have to prove BARD that Kavanaugh knowingly lied about it. (For his confirmation he can't argue, "Well, if it happened I was so drunk that I have no recollection of it"; that wouldn't play politically. But if he were actually going to be prosecuted for lying about it, the prosecution would have to overcome that argument as well.)


EDIT: Just to be clear, "I was so drunk that I didn't know what I was doing at the time" would not be a defense to a charge of attempted rape. But "I was so drunk then that I don't remember it now" would be a defense to a charge of lying about it.
   2364. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:51 PM (#5750288)
But I do think it is important to stress there, that it is not because of "how close I am standing," it is because of "you shoving your cock in my face."

"Decent people" understand the difference.
   2365. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:53 PM (#5750289)

For the record, to the best of my knowledge my #### has never been in, or even near, FCTBPH's face.
   2366. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:53 PM (#5750290)
I do think at this point that they need to have more witnesses at his hearing. They need to call everyone who someone claims to have firsthand knowledge of Kavanaugh's conduct during these two incidents. That would be (on the one hand) Ford, who says she has known for 36 years that Kavanaugh attacked her but never mentioned it, and Ramirez, who was admittedly so drunk that she remembers little and claims not to have been sure until talking to a lawyer this week that Kavanaugh was the offender 35 years ago). And (on the other) lots of lots of people who Ford and Ramirez have identified but who deny that they saw Kavanaugh do anything wrong. Let Ford and Ramirez be cross-examined. The former, I have no idea how she'll come across; the latter, based on the New Yorker piece, will be torn to shreds. Then let Kavanaugh be equally strongly cross-examined. We'll see how credible he seems.

Fine, and while we're at it, let's put Judge up there for a little cross-examination about his and Kavanaugh's past activities,** and see how that affects the credibility of his denial. Let it all hang out, so to speak.

** Which are more relevant to this case than all those glowing character references from Kavanaugh's law clerks, since none of them presumably knew him back before he got Born Again or whatever the Catholics call it when they finally grow up after saying 100 Hail Marys.
   2367. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:57 PM (#5750292)
For the record, to the best of my knowledge my #### has never been in, or even near, FCTBPH's face.

You're the one who responded to somebody else's account with a first person statement ###.
   2368. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:59 PM (#5750293)
So wait, we can't call Judge to the stand because he denies Ford's story, and we can't call Ramirez to testify because.....????

Why don't you want to hear from Ford? She's the main witness. It would only help the Dems if she did well and it looked like others should have been called. Instead, she has refused to meet with Committee Investigators or give any statement under oath. It's been Delay-Delay-Delay, and now you want more delay? There's been plenty of time since Kavanaugh was nominated for people to come forward with sworn statements, but NO ONE HAS, If Ford backs out, her allegations aren't credible, although there will be a massive effort to contend otherwise. 2018, where some claim a witness's refusal to testify under oath somehow enhances her credibility.
   2369. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:59 PM (#5750294)
The battle over this seat was lost two and a half years ago. It should have been a greased pathway of actuarial tables, paperwork and counting to 50. I cannot believe how fantastically entertaining the inevitable has been. I'd like to thank everyone who made this possible: Judge Brett Kavanaugh's roving whiskey dick, Kavanaugh Klone and his doppeldick, whoever invented Twitter, the bewitched living apple head doll calling itself "Chuck Grassley," original suffragette Dianne Feinstein [orchestra music starts to play softly but slowly rises], the angry brain cell in Clapper's head that's been posting all week, a quixotic last-minute burst of frat law from David Nieporent [orchestra music swells to a crescendo], and of course Harvey Weinstein's traumatized potted plant for starting it all! Thank you, and good night!
   2370. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:01 PM (#5750295)
Josh Marshall
‏Verified account @joshtpm

1/ GOP sens & the people actually running this - Federalist Society clique operating out of the White House - have one priority: Get BK on the Court by any means necessary. Damaged? Who cares? Thomas has been damaged goods on the Court for almost 30 yrs. None of them care.

2/ The people who are apoplectic are the operatives running Republican campaigns right now. This is the worst possible scenario for them. Those folks don’t give a crap abt BK and they don’t even care that much abt the Court, at least as it concerns their day jobs.

3/ Regardless of how this turns out you now have basically guaranteed the last six weeks of the campaign focus on the GOP and sexual predation when much of the campaign was already abt the ur-predator Donald Trump. It basically turns up to 11 what was already a central ...

4/ vulnerability and guarantees it will be talked about every day. The key point not being that either party has a monopoly on virtue but that hanging over this election from the start is the universal knowledge that the President is a serial sexual predator and the ...

5/ entire election is fundamentally about him. And that’s not all. If Trump has to pull the plug on BK it will ignite a massive conflagration on the right, which is very different but also bad news for GOP campaigns. We shld not ignore the fact that this will ...

6/ spark a backlash among some male voters. But the way this is moving that will be overwhelmed by those two other factors. And the real gas on the fire - DJT entering vocally into this fight - has not even happened yet.
   2371. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:05 PM (#5750296)
So wait, we can't call Judge to the stand because he denies Ford's story, and we can't call Ramirez to testify because.....????

Why don't you want to hear from Ford? She's the main witness.


When did I ever say that? Of course I want both Ford and Kavanaugh to appear, as they will. That doesn't exclude others being called.
   2372. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:12 PM (#5750299)

That doesn't exclude others being called.
Right; Andy wants lots of people called... who aren't witnesses. He wants people to say, "Well, Kavanaugh could have done it" or "I believe Ford/Ramirez," as if polling ignorant people were the way to resolve factual disputes. And if you point out how nutty this is, he'll just say something nihilistic about courtrooms and politics.
   2373. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:18 PM (#5750302)
When did I ever say that? Of course I want both Ford and Kavanaugh to appear, as they will. That doesn't exclude others being called.

Well, as I said, it's looking like Ford may back out. Perhaps, you should let her know that she should go ahead. Whatever "deficiencies" Democrats perceive in the process, Ford has the opportunity to make her case in public, with counsel, under oath, and subject to cross-examination. That should be enough, but I wouldn't bet on her showing up at this point.
   2374. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:18 PM (#5750303)
Senator Grassley's spokesperson:
"Yet again, Senate Democrats actively withheld information from the rest of the Cmte only to drop information at politically opportune moments."
The New Yorker article:
"Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with the New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact of Kavanaugh's nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote."
   2375. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:28 PM (#5750304)
Re-reading that New Yorker piece, it's amazing how bad it is. Ramirez was so drunk she has gaps in her memory and was not sure for decades that Kavanaugh was the alleged culprit. One person who wasn't there claims to have heard hearsay that Kavanaugh did it. Every single person that Ramirez identified as being at the party denied either the incident or even being at the party. And not a single person Farrow talked to from Yale other than (sort of) Ramirez says that they ever witnessed Kavanaugh engage in any sexual misconduct. How could any legitimate news outlet publish that piece?

EDIT: This is not a case in which a news outlet relies on a whole bunch of anonymous sources and you can say, "Well, that's not ideal but it was the only way to publish the story." Farrow couldn’t even get someone off the record to say Kavanaugh did it. There are several anonymous sources in the piece, yes -- but none of them have any evidence to back up Ramirez's admittedly unreliable memory. At most, they're willing to say that they find Ramirez believable.
   2376. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:35 PM (#5750307)
Poor Anthony Kennedy. He only retired after he was given assurances that his replacement would be Kavanaugh. Now he has to go back to work.
   2377. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:35 PM (#5750308)
Re-reading that New Yorker piece, it's amazing how bad it is. Ramirez was so drunk she has gaps in her memory and was not sure for decades that Kavanaugh was the alleged culprit. One person who wasn't there claims to have heard hearsay that Kavanaugh did it. Every single person that Ramirez identified as being at the party denied either the incident or even being at the party. And not a single person Farrow talked to from Yale other than (sort of) Ramirez says that they ever witnessed Kavanaugh engage in any sexual misconduct. How could any legitimate news outlet publish that piece?

There a tweet out there that says NBC, NYT, & WaPo were also aware of the story, but didn't find it met their standards.
   2378. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:36 PM (#5750309)

That doesn't exclude others being called.

Right; Andy wants lots of people called... who aren't witnesses. He wants people to say, "Well, Kavanaugh could have done it" or "I believe Ford/Ramirez," as if polling ignorant people were the way to resolve factual disputes. And if you point out how nutty this is, he'll just say something nihilistic about courtrooms and politics.


What you're saying amounts to this:

---Call only Ford, Kavanaugh, and now Ramirez.

---Don't call anyone who might be able to shed any light on the likelihood that either Kavanaugh or his accusers might have more credibilty.

---And since Kavanaugh will deny everything and neither Ford nor Ramirez will have kept tangible souvenirs of their experiences, we're obliged to assume that Kavanaugh is telling the truth and that his accusers are either liars or just have bad memories. No other possibility can be entertained and acted upon, or else no future male nominee will be safe from any similar attack.

Nice work if you can get it. We'll see if your boys can get it.

---------------------------------------------------

Why don't you want to hear from Ford? She's the main witness.

When did I ever say that? Of course I want both Ford and Kavanaugh to appear, as they will. That doesn't exclude others being called.

Well, as I said,


I quoted what you said. What you said was bullshit, but of course rather than admit** that you were bullshitting you simply repeat your fantasy that Ford is going to back out of testifying.

** Of course you never admit anything. It's straight out of the Roy Cohn / Donald Trump playbook. Too bad you're nearly as old as Trump, or else you'd make a great replacement for Sarah.
   2379. zenbitz Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:37 PM (#5750310)
Blood in the water now.
   2380. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:38 PM (#5750311)
There a tweet out there that says NBC, NYT, & WaPo were also aware of the story, but didn't find it met their standards.

Yes, if only the New Yorker had Crazy Eddie Whelan as their ethics consultant.
   2381. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:39 PM (#5750312)
Blood in the water now.

Coming out of her whatever.
   2382. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:43 PM (#5750313)
Kavanaugh will withdraw by the end of the week.
   2383. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:48 PM (#5750315)
At this point it's almost certainly better for the Republicans in the long term if Kavanaugh withdraws. If I didn't think he was such a ####, and bad for the country as a whole (in other words, if I were a pure partisan like some around here), I'd want him confirmed just to see the Republicans burn.
   2384. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:52 PM (#5750316)
At this point it's almost certainly better for the Republicans in the long term if Kavanaugh withdraws.


Yes.

Murkowski was already wobbly, and it's hard to see this helping.

Look at how the dynamic has shifted. Previously, it was all about how difficult a job it was going to be for Schumer--how can he satisfy the base while protecting vulnerable Democrats? You'll notice that no one is really questioning whether Joe Donnelly is going to vote no right now. Now a vote on Kavanaugh is an increasingly heavy lift for incumbent R senators who are already facing a wave election.

McConnell is too savvy a politician to allow this to continue. There's simply not that much time to get someone else a vote.
   2385. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:54 PM (#5750317)
I'm starting to sign on to the idea that if Republicans withdraw Kavanaugh now then for as long as the seas are high in the #MeToo era a man nominated by a Republican president won't be able to be confirmed for the Court.

   2386. Morty Causa Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:57 PM (#5750318)
The Republicans may be in the quintessential no-win situation. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is presuming the accusations pan out to some degree. Democrats/liberals are in a take no prisoner mode. If so, the Republicans best shot may be just ramming Kavanaugh through, come hell or high water. It may have devastating electoral effects in the short term at least, but it would be the consummation of a long-sought goal, which is conservative dominance on the SCt. And, actually, the alternative (withdrawal and renomination) probably wouldn't help them in the election. Whichever way they go, they lose, but by insisting on Kavanaugh they show a testicular fortitude to the dunderheads that is the party's base.
   2387. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:58 PM (#5750319)
To add to #2375, despite contacting "several dozens of classmates of Ramirez & Kavanaugh", they were unable to find a single eyewitness to the alleged incident, despite it supposedly happening with lots of students present. What's the chances that nterviewing that many former students without it leading to someone who actually saw something if it was true? Instead, like with Ms. Ford, those named as being present dispute the claim. I think they're already more people disputing Ramirez's account than Ford's. Her "corroboration" is basically people with some version of "Could have happened, it was college, lots of stuff went down", but who can't pin anything on Kavanaugh. It's amazing what some people will immediately embrace. Isn't it quite a coincidence that the only accusations against Kavanaugh are coming from people who not only have no corroboration, but are immediately contradicted despite the difficulty of responding to decades old smears? I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether the Judiciary Committee should now offer to hear Ramirez after Ford & Kavanaugh, but I doubt she'd accept the invitation. Even the Democrats aren't asking her to testify, just using her as an excuse to avoid Ford testifying.
   2388. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:01 AM (#5750321)
Sometimes he even runs around the house naked, (intentionally) making his slightly older sister uncomfortable. I assume this post of mine will now disqualify him from any public office in the future.


If you think he’s still going to be stripping naked and running after uncomfortable girls when he’s 18, you may want to start saving up for bail money instead of a college fund. Just sayin’.
   2389. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:01 AM (#5750322)
What tastes better: Clapper tears or Clapper flop sweat?
   2390. tshipman Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:04 AM (#5750323)
I'm starting to sign on to the idea that if Republicans withdraw Kavanaugh now then for as long as the seas are high in the #MeToo era a man nominated by a Republican president won't be able to be confirmed for the Court.


There haven't been issues with Gorsuch, Alito or Roberts.

I think after this it's significantly more likely that women get nominated for a little while, but I don't think that's a bad thing. There have been more women than men on SCOTUS for approximately zero years of our Republic.
   2391. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:04 AM (#5750324)
What you're saying amounts to this:

---Call only Ford, Kavanaugh, and now Ramirez.
False. See 2357.
---Don't call anyone who might be able to shed any light on the likelihood that either Kavanaugh or his accusers might have more credibilty.
A bit vague, but generally correct. Testimony from someone's friend that this person believes his or her friend adds nothing to any proceeding. If those people have specific knowledge of what happened, they are appropriate witnesses. If their only contribution is to talk about who they believe, they are not.
---And since Kavanaugh will deny everything and neither Ford nor Ramirez will have kept tangible souvenirs of their experiences, we're obliged to assume that Kavanaugh is telling the truth and that his accusers are either liars or just have bad memories.
Once again, you keep dishonestly ignoring that they have no physical evidence and no witnesses. They've got nothing. We should start from the presumption of innocence when someone is accused of something. That is not a legal obligation here since it isn't a trial,¹ but it is in my opinion a moral one. Now, if these people are willing to come forward and be cross-examined,² and their stories hold together better than Kavanaugh's, that's a different situation. But it's not the one we're in now.


¹It is of course never a legal obligation for a member of the general public, even in the case of a trial; that presumption is legally required only for the judge and jury.

²As the Sixth Circuit recently noted in a Title IX case, cross-examination is "'the greatest legal engine ever invented' for uncovering the truth."
   2392. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:05 AM (#5750325)
What tastes better: Clapper tears or Clapper flop sweat?


Give him credit. He does neither. He will just cooly pivot to the next most qualified ever nominee and never speak of this bump in the road again.
   2393. tshipman Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:07 AM (#5750326)
A bit vague, but generally correct. Testimony from someone's friend that this person believes his or her friend adds nothing to any proceeding. If those people have specific knowledge of what happened, they are appropriate witnesses. If their only contribution is to talk about who they believe, they are not.


So should Judge be subpoenad or not?
   2394. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:09 AM (#5750327)
I quoted what you said. What you said was bullshit, but of course rather than admit** that you were bullshitting you simply repeat your fantasy that Ford is going to back out of testifying.

So, you agree that Ford backing out now would be complete BS? Glad we agree, but I think you're going to be the one proved wrong shortly, although at this point, I'd be happy to have Ford testify Thursday. Her cross-examination is likely the quickest way to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh, and after that I doubt Ms. Ramirez will be willing to make her allegations under oath.
   2395. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:11 AM (#5750328)
It's been hilarious to see Clapper asserting assertively all week about something he really knows nothing about (Ford and her intentions) but wants REALLY REALLY BADLY to be seen through a certain GOP-colored lens. Like this audience was ever going to be persuaded by anything he says about "judicial appointments".
   2396. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:12 AM (#5750329)
So, you agree that Ford backing out now would complete BS?


I've got news for you. If anyone is backing out, it's not Ford.
   2397. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:14 AM (#5750330)
I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether the Judiciary Committee should now offer to hear Ramirez after Ford & Kavanaugh, but I doubt she'd accept the invitation. Even the Democrats aren't asking her to testify, just using her as an excuse to avoid Ford testifying.
You'll note that Ramirez, even now, didn't go to the FBI or Feinstein; she went to the media. And the article doesn't have Ramirez offering to testify: "Her attorney, Garnett, said that he and Ramirez had not yet decided when and how she would convey the details of her allegation to the Senate Judiciary Committee...." And it says "if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate."

But if she says that she wants to testify, I don't see how the Judiciary Committee could refuse to let her (assuming she doesn't decide that she'll only testify if the hearings are postponed until the first of Octember and Kavanaugh is required to stand on his head facing the wall while she testifies).
   2398. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:16 AM (#5750331)
I'm starting to sign on to the idea that if Republicans withdraw Kavanaugh now then for as long as the seas are high in the #MeToo era a man nominated by a Republican president won't be able to be confirmed for the Court.

There haven't been issues with Gorsuch, Alito or Roberts.


All were confirmed before October 2017, which was essentially the start of the #MeToo era, with the exposure of Harvey Weinstein.

The fact is that there is a very strong defense to be made for Kavanaugh in both of these cases -- but to even make it is seen as victim bashing.

This is a very bad place to have arrived at.

An accuser is called a victim in fact. But to know that she's in fact a victim you have to know -- or be reasonably certain -- that the sexual assault happened. But nobody can possibly get to reasonable certainty in either of these cases.

We're going through the looking glass here. The flimsiness of the Ramirez accusation may actually hurt Ford's case.
   2399. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:17 AM (#5750333)
There haven't been issues with Gorsuch, Alito or Roberts.
Argument made and refuted last week: those were before the #MeToo era began. (I would also note that none threatened to be the fifth vote against Roe, so there was far less desperation.)
   2400. tshipman Posted: September 24, 2018 at 12:22 AM (#5750334)
All were confirmed before October 2017, which was essentially the start of the #MeToo era, with the exposure of Harvey Weinstein.


Clarence Thomas was juuuust a bit before October 2017. I think it's far more likely that the men who have shitty pasts are having them come to life than a grand conspiracy that was only emboldened by Harvey Weinstein's downfall.

This is a very bad place to have arrived at.


You know a worse place? One where you can't trust your classmates at a party, or one where you get told that sexual assault is just "horseplay."

Yeah, if innocent men have their lives worsened over nothing, that would be a pretty bad spot. But shutting down sexual assault victims before their stories can be heard is a much, much worse place. And that's where we're coming from.
Page 24 of 25 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24 25 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Page rendered in 0.6951 seconds
47 querie(s) executed