SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Kilmer17]

12 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

Because they wanted an investigation to disqualify Kavanaugh from the court, prove he gave dishonest testimony.

 

And they got one. BK was still confirmed. 

 

 

 

Because no one can explain what a full investigation is and whom is investigating and for what purpose.

 

The Democratic Committee of whatever is going to get to the bottom of this... how? And again, to prove BK was lying? To prove he committed the crime? To impeach him? I think I'm just behind on this conversation. 

I appreciate this honesty.  It's what I believe as well.  The Dems didnt want an investigation to help Ford, they wanted it to hurt BK.  THere is some crossover in the two ideas, but they arent the same thing.  There were a few people here, and int he national spotlight telling people that what the Dems were asking for, and ultimately what Flake gave them was going to be worthless.  But when I pointed out that Ford (and Ramirez, et al) should file a police report, I was blasted.  Even though everyone now sees that filing a police report was going to be the only way the Dems got the type of investigation they were going to need.

 

And the thing I think everyone should remember is that DiFi could have started this process months before and chose not to do so.  I want that investigated as well.

[tshile]

And one poster was adamant that the dems would pursue an investigation to impeach him. 

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

And one poster was adamant that the dems would pursue an investigation to impeach him. 

I hope they do.  

[mistertim]

3 hours ago, grego said:

How did we go from full investigation to investigation is pointless in one week? 

 

With regards to the sexual assault allegations, I think we're running into an issue that we ran into during his confirmation. Namely the difference between a criminal investigation and an investigation that could provide enough credible corroboration to the multiple accusations against Kav that it would convince some Rs to refuse to vote to confirm him. 

 

A criminal investigation into that, which Kilmer seems to be saying he wants, is probably pointless at this time, insofar as getting Kav thrown in jail for what happened all those years ago is even possible. First of all the statute of limitations issue is probably relevant here, though I don't think we ever found out definitively what it is in MD...but it also probably depends on what the actual charge would be. Second of all, even if SOL wasn't an issue, proving him guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt for something like that which happened 30 years ago would be incredibly difficult I'd think. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe one of our resident ones here can chime in, but it seems that way to me. 

 

That doesn't mean that having a (real) investigation would be pointless (and I haven't seen anyone on here saying that any investigations would all now be pointless so that feels like a bit of a straw man), but I think we need to figure out what specific things should be investigated, how, and why. "INVESTIGATE ALL THE THINGS!" seems pretty broad and rings a tad hollow as a good faith argument.

 

I certainly think that the multiple people who came forward and wanted to speak and provide testimony or an interview should be allowed to, since that could potentially at least provide evidence that he perjured himself multiple times when testifying under oath (which he could theoretically be thrown in jail for via USC 1621). That's still a bit murky now though, as Rs would probably say that since he's a SCOTUS justice he would need to be impeached instead of tried criminally.

 

I'd also welcome a real investigation into the multiple sexual assault accusations, but we need to be real about the goal and potential results. Kav isn't going to be tried criminally for it, and he's already on SCOTUS so removing him would be quite difficult since I think it's safe to say that Congressional Rs would never ever ever vote to impeach him no matter what. However, a thorough investigation could be enough to give much more weight to the allegations, or even weight against Ford if there's corroborating evidence that she was lying about it. It could show that the Senate Rs were intentionally uninterested in and/or actively engaged in thwarting, any in depth investigation of the sexual assault allegations against Kav. That wouldn't really have criminal implications but it could certainly have public opinion and political implications. 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by mistertim

[NoCalMike]

An investigation (criminal) would be pointless because no matter how much digging is done, the likelihood that they would uncover a secret witness, or document, or revelation that shows 100% of what happened either way was very small.  Both sides knew this fully going in.

 

The point of the investigation (a real one) was to gather as much facts versus fabrications were being told during the testimony (while under oath) so that the Senators who claim they were on the fence, could make the most informed decision possible.  There was never going to be a witness that flat out said "Yep, he did it, I witnessed it, it's all true"  That wasn't what the Democrats were looking for.  What they wanted was the FBI to have the time & scope afforded to them to put together a timeline and story pieces so that while people might still not be 100% certain one way or another, there would either be much more smoke to the fire, or the allegations would have more and more holes in it.  One of those outcomes would probably happen with a proper investigation. 

[The Evil Genius]

[visionary]

6 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Is anyone here worried that an investigation that includes the Avenatti/Swetnick allegations will come back to haunt the Dems?

I don’t think the Dems have much control over Avenatti.  If anything they were reluctant to listen or him and there were various reports that they worried he was making things worse and wanted to ignore him until Swetnick came out.  Even then I don’t think they really knew whether to trust him or not.  I think if anything a proper investigation will show how little control democrats had over the situation and how much Republicans were involved in helping Kavanaugh.

[visionary]

 

[skinsmarydu]

21 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I'm afraid you will learn that Dem controlled House has about the same level of interest.  Maybe they'll prove me wrong.  But I'm guessing they will have very targeted, limited and politically motivated investigations.

Just when you start making sense, you go and ruin it with something partisan. ?

[grego]

13 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Just when you start making sense, you go and ruin it with something partisan. ?

 

what he said was the exact opposite of partisan. he's saying both parties are terrible and put politics above principle. 

 

(whats interesting is that that is now considered a conservative position.)

[Larry]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

what he said was the exact opposite of partisan. he's saying both parties are terrible and put politics above principle. 

 

(whats interesting is that that is now considered a conservative position.)

Edited October 12, 2018 by Larry

[Larry]

  Deleted. 

[Kilmer17]

2 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

Just when you start making sense, you go and ruin it with something partisan. ?

I really wasnt trying to attack the Dems with that.  If I was, that was pretty weak on my end.

 

Do you think the Dems will open up a real investigation or will they limit the scope to only the findings that would beneficial to themselves?  I dont.

[The Evil Genius]

16 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I really wasnt trying to attack the Dems with that.  If I was, that was pretty weak on my end.

 

Do you think the Dems will open up a real investigation or will they limit the scope to only the findings that would beneficial to themselves?  I dont.

 

The GOP led 6 investigations into HRC/Obama/Benghazi and found nothing. I'd suspect the Democrat led House would investigate any and everything until there is a finding (or lack thereof).

 

Also, hardly any mention here about the ethics investigations that the Chief Justice referred a day or so back. Anyone know if a SC Justice has had an ongoing ethics investigation while joining the court?

Edited October 12, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I really wasnt trying to attack the Dems with that.  If I was, that was pretty weak on my end.

 

Do you think the Dems will open up a real investigation or will they limit the scope to only the findings that would beneficial to themselves?  I dont.

 

Your claim that you're not trying to attack the Dems might be more credible if you don't follow it by explaining exactly how you're trying to attack the Dems. 

 

 

[mistertim]

3 hours ago, grego said:

 

what he said was the exact opposite of partisan. he's saying both parties are terrible and put politics above principle. 

 

(whats interesting is that that is now considered a conservative position.)

 

Bothsideism isn't even a position. It's simply a way to distract and deflect when you're on a "side" that has consistently shown itself to be doing far worse than the other (even if the other side is far from perfect itself). We see it so damn much nowadays and it gets silly.

Edited October 12, 2018 by mistertim

[Kilmer17]

I'll just sit back and patiently await the full investigation and it's findings.

 

I'm really confused about what most of the left-wingers here are wanting.  Do you folks want an investigation or not?  Not do you think there will or should be one, but do YOU want one?  And if it's limited in scope, why and where is it to be limited?  

[bearrock]

29 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Bothsideism isn't even a position. It's simply a way to distract and deflect when you're on a "side" that has consistently shown itself to be doing far worse than the other (even if the other side is far from perfect itself). We see it so damn much nowadays and it gets silly.

 

It depends though.  If it's bothsidism to say yeah my side did something shady, but so do the other side, that's a problem.  But if it is merely pointing out both sides are giving the beat down to principles, that's different imo.

 

7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I'll just sit back and patiently await the full investigation and it's findings.

 

I'm really confused about what most of the left-wingers here are wanting.  Do you folks want an investigation or not?  Not do you think there will or should be one, but do YOU want one?  And if it's limited in scope, why and where is it to be limited?  

 

Gotta be full and thorough investigation into all the shenanigans involved with the confirmation.  Hopefully followed up by some much needed changes to the confirmation process (start with min/max time for consideration and subpoena powers for less than majority).

[mistertim]

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

It depends though.  If it's bothsidism to say yeah my side did something shady, but so do the other side, that's a problem.  But if it is merely pointing out both sides are giving the beat down to principles, that's different imo.

 

 

I dunno, feels like a distinction without a difference to me. And sure, someone can point out that 2 things both have similarities in bad stuff they have done/are doing but in this situation IMO that's like saying "cancer and the flu are both illnesses and both suck" and leaving it at that without acknowledging that one is far far worse than the other.

[mcsluggo]

On 10/8/2018 at 7:12 PM, Forehead said:

Well, I know of one pending divorce because of all of this.  Not the only reason, but the straw that broke the camels back.

 

honestly... i can stay friends with people that support the current republican party.   but i have lost serious respect for them, both in my opinion of their ethics and my opinion of their intelligence.   

 

and (if it were the case) losing that much respect for my spouse would be a very serious thing

 

 

(fortunately, i chose wisely, and my spouse is much too ethical and intelligent for that ****)

Edited October 12, 2018 by mcsluggo

[grego]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

Bothsideism isn't even a position. It's simply a way to distract and deflect when you're on a "side" that has consistently shown itself to be doing far worse than the other (even if the other side is far from perfect itself). We see it so damn much nowadays and it gets silly.

 

i hear you. i think if i thought that one side was really much worse than the other, i'd call it 'bothsidesism' as well. to me, saying both sides are awful just seems like stating a fact, like water is wet. i don't see that as a partisan statement, but i can see how you see it as bothsidesism. . 

[grego]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

I dunno, feels like a distinction without a difference to me. And sure, someone can point out that 2 things both have similarities in bad stuff they have done/are doing but in this situation IMO that's like saying "cancer and the flu are both illnesses and both suck" and leaving it at that without acknowledging that one is far far worse than the other.

 

better stay out of the seattle times thread with that thinking 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Burgold]

Parseltongue is a real thing?! Hermoinie should kick their arses!

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

I dunno, feels like a distinction without a difference to me. And sure, someone can point out that 2 things both have similarities in bad stuff they have done/are doing but in this situation IMO that's like saying "cancer and the flu are both illnesses and both suck" and leaving it at that without acknowledging that one is far far worse than the other.

If discussing the flu, then you shouldn't always have to point out the cancer also.  

 

As a conservative and being strongly against the current GOP, I get frustrated when I say something negative about the Left and have to always include a statement that the GOP is worse.  Sometimes you should be able to acknowledge that both sides suck at something and be able to discuss the issue alone.