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

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

Is CNN a right wing outlet?

 

Keith Ellison said:

Doesn't the italicized portion sound a bit like the Kavanaugh denial? 

 

There is a standard for "my" team, and a standard for "your" team (general my and your) - all dependent on which team you are on. There should be one standard.

Here's the difference, she claims she has a video and has not produced it. Ford hasn't said anything like that.

 

Monahan has video and could goto police, but has not. Ford wants a criminal investigation.

 

I actually want to believe Monahan about Ellison because he comes across as some assholes I have encountered but when the moment came to step up, so far she has stayed silent or just sent subliminal shots. 

21 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

No real vetting?  He was vetted by the FBI on multiple occasions.  Are you part of the deep state conspiracy that thinks the FBI is incompetent?

What about the government documents the GOP doesn't want anyone to see?

Edited September 19, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[Llevron]

Wasting your time 

[bearrock]

9 hours ago, twa said:

 

The only FBI investigation in the Hill/Thomas matter was about 10 yrs before the hearing fwir.

 

She was required to take a lie detector test and called to testify, no further investigation

 

The FBI simply added Dr.Fords accusation to the background file.. afaik

 

 

 

 

I don't know if there was another investigation between Hill/Thomas in the early 80's but the investigation I was thinking about was the one that occurred after Hill made the allegations to the Senate (although it seems more like an interview of Hill and Thomas than a full investigation)

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-10-13-9104020556-story.html

 

Quote

According to Hill`s testimony, she first mentioned to the Kennedy aide on Sept. 5 that she might have information about possible sexual harassment by Thomas.

 

After she sent the committee an affidavit providing basic details of her charges, two FBI agents-a man and a woman-interviewed her at her home in Norman, Okla.

 

She said the agents asked her only general questions and told her she could speak at whatever level of detail she felt comfortable.

 

Hill said the agents told her they would return for a second interview if more detail were needed. She said one agent called the next day to clarify one matter, but that was the last time the agents contacted her.

 

The FBI did not interview Thomas about Hill`s allegations until Sept. 25, two days before the Judiciary Committee deadlocked 7-7 on whether to approve Thomas` nomination.

 

During that interview, Thomas denied Hill`s allegations, and neither senators nor the White House instructed the FBI to pursue the matter further by interviewing additional witnesses.

 

The FBI report merely represented Hill`s and Thomas` remarks and did not try to draw any conclusions.

 

I think the FBI could do a quick investigation.  Interview, Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, the husband, and the therapist.  See if anyone says something different when there are legal consequences for lying.  And see if any of the interview turns up some detail that might give them a lead for further investigation.  If no story changes and no leads turn up, it would be case closed with just a report of the various parties' statements to the FBI.  

 

What has me perplexed about Mark Judge is that he doesn't want to testify in front of the Senate.  I could see him acting through an attorney and setting a ground rule and say he will testify only about the particular accusation between Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh (not have a fishing expedition over all the shenanigans Kavanaugh might have been involved in during high school).  Then his testimony would be as simple as I don't recall any party or any instance where Kavanaugh acted like Dr. Ford is alleging.  

 

Another question is, did Kavanaugh or Judge make any statement as to whether they knew Dr. Ford in high school?  

[Kilmer17]

The FBI has already declined to investigate and turned it over to local law enforcement.  Which is PRECISELY why Ford's attorney is now saying only an FBI investigation first will be acceptable.  She can claim Ford was willing to testify, but her conditions wouldnt be met.  Without mentioning it was impossible to meet them.  Kavanaugh could do the same.  State that he will only answer questions from Elvis.  Voila!  He's willing to answer questions, it's now just SOMEONE ELSES fault that his conditions cannot be met.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

The FBI has already declined to investigate 

 

Where you see that at? 

[Popeman38]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

If there was vetting, the results of the vetting were not released which is just as good as no vetting being done. The Republicans sealed 90% of his record for what reason? 

He was vetted when he was nominated was a U.S. Circuit judge, and when he was nominated as a Supreme Court judge. He was likely vetted before he was hired to the White House.

[Chew]

If their boy Kavanaugh truly is innocent of any wrongdoing, wouldn't republicans want an investigation so that his name could be cleared by a formal process?  if they confirm next week after just a "he said/she said," we'll never know the full truth.

Trump has the authority as POTUS to order the FBI to conduct an investigation at any time.  The last time a SCOTUS nominee was accused of sexual assault back in '91, the then president DID order the FBI to conduct an investigation.  There is precedent.

I'm all about peace, acceptance, and love....but this country will be better off when half of the current republican officials are dead. 

[Popeman38]

28 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Here's the difference, she claims she has a video and has not produced it. Ford hasn't said anything like that.

 

Monahan has video and could goto police, but has not. Ford wants a criminal investigation.

I actually want to believe Monahan about Ellison because he comes across as some assholes I have encountered but when the moment came to step up, so far she has stayed silent or just sent subliminal shots.

Or showed texts and DMs to CNN. Monahan doesn't want the video to be publicly released, as she has said on multiple occasions. And I agree that Ellison shouldn't be denied the AG job because of an allegation. But if Ellison shouldn't be denied, neither should Kavanaugh. I want a standard to be applied equally to both sides.

 

Just so everyone knows where I am coming from, I am not a Republican (never have been), I did not vote for Trump (never would, I have a daughter), and I think Merrick Garland should have been confirmed. 

 

Quote

What about the government documents the GOP doesn't want anyone to see?

That's not part of his background vetting.  That is document release.

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Where you see that at? 

Which part?

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/13/17855900/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-fbi-letter

 

What we know about the explosive letter accusing Kavanaugh of attempted sexual assault

Dianne Feinstein shared it with the FBI this week.

 

The FBI — which handles background checks on a number of government appointees including Supreme Court nominees — says it has added the letter to Kavanaugh’s file. “Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process,” an FBI spokesperson said. A bureau official also told the New York Times that it has not opened a criminal investigation into the matter.

 

 

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Which part?

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/13/17855900/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-fbi-letter

 

What we know about the explosive letter accusing Kavanaugh of attempted sexual assault

Dianne Feinstein shared it with the FBI this week.

 

The FBI — which handles background checks on a number of government appointees including Supreme Court nominees — says it has added the letter to Kavanaugh’s file. “Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process,” an FBI spokesperson said. A bureau official also told the New York Times that it has not opened a criminal investigation into the matter.

 

 

 

FBI did not, and should not, open a criminal investigation because it is not a matter within their jurisdiction.  As a criminal matter, it is strictly a local matter.

 

But just like the FBI investigated a civil sexual harassment matter in the Hill/Thomas situation, the FBI can do background check investigation on a federal nominee.  

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

FBI did not, and should not, open a criminal investigation because it is not a matter within their jurisdiction.  As a criminal matter, it is strictly a local matter.

 

But just like the FBI investigated a civil sexual harassment matter in the Hill/Thomas situation, the FBI can do background check investigation on a federal nominee.  

And they did.  Which is why this letter was ADDED to his file.

[Llevron]

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

And they did.  Which is why this letter was ADDED to his file.

 

Right but my point was that saying they declined to investigate is not true. They have to be instructed to investigate something that is not part of their normal jurisdiction if I remember correctly. In this case, instructed by the president. 

 

Which is in effect the same thing as what you are saying as the president will decline to investigate. But its different because its Trump declining and not the FBI.  

 

Correct me if im wrong someone. I may be. 

[Kilmer17]

10 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Right but my point was that saying they declined to investigate is not true. They have to be instructed to investigate something that is not part of their normal jurisdiction if I remember correctly. In this case, instructed by the president. 

 

Which is in effect the same thing as what you are saying as the president will decline to investigate. But its different because its Trump declining and not the FBI.  

 

Correct me if im wrong someone. I may be. 

Ah.  I didnt see it that way, but I think you're correct.  He's not going to though.

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Ah.  I didnt see it that way, but I think you're correct.  He's not going to though.

 

We may have better chance with Elvis questioning Kavanaugh than Trump ordering the investigation.  

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Ah.  I didnt see it that way, but I think you're correct.  He's not going to though.

 

Right, which is why I said its basically the same thing. Asking the president to do something we know he wont is just as good as asking the FBI to do something they already declined to do in the end. But it is different in intent if nothing else. 

[Kilmer17]

Id like to hear them both testify.  That's the bottom line.  But there is a real political deadline.  It would dumb to ignore that fact or think politicians shouldnt act politically.

 

She's made a serious accusation.  She should either testify about it, or let it go.  Kavanaugh has no way of defending himself as it stands now.

[The Evil Genius]

Please.

 

There is no political deadline other than the one the GOP wants to meet.

 

If we can go 400+ days without a justice..I'm sure a few more weeks won't hurt this time. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Kilmer17]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Please.

 

There is no political deadline other than the one the GOP wants to meet.

 

If we can go 400+ days without a justice..I'm sure a few more weeks won't hurt this time. 

So how does that play out?  Explain it for me.

 

The Dems win enough seats in Nov to take the Senate in Jan.  And if the vote is delayed past then?  What happens next?

[The Evil Genius]

Why would an investigation delay it until Jan+? Unless you're suggesting that there is a lot more to investigate than what you had suggested before. I thought your opinion was that there wasnt any evidence? If so, then it would be over quickly, the GOP can claim it did it's due diligence, and then maybe* they won't get hammered at the polls for voting this guy in.

 

*Nah, I think they're ****ed in 2018 and 2020 for this and other actions.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Kilmer17]

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

Why would an investigation delay it until Jan+? Unless you'ree suggesting that there is a lot more to investigate than what you had suggested before. I thought your opinion was that there wasnt any evidence?

I dont have any insight into how long it would take.  Is 1 day enough time?  Is 100?  Who decides?

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

I dont have any insight into how long it would take.  Is 1 day enough time?  Is 100?  Who decides?

The designated investigators?

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

So how does that play out?  Explain it for me.

 

The Dems win enough seats in Nov to take the Senate in Jan.  And if the vote is delayed past then?  What happens next?

 

Even if nobody can sit here today and describe how it plays out, that doesn't really mean there is a deadline.

[tshile]

4 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

 

OK, so now an unproven accusation from 30+ years ago is enough to kill a nomination?  That’s the precedent we want set?

 

 

They want to set it now, then cry about it later when it’s used against them. 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

I suppose there is also the matter of whether it is the right thing to do? Once dude is sitting on the court it isn't going to matter if something new comes out 2 years from now.

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

They want to set it now, then cry about it later when it’s used against them. 

 

 

 

People are really looking past this like we dont all see it coming.