Reply With Quote
lol 'asking for a comeback' after telling me I can't read. Lots of vitamin I in that post.
You want me to be a Christian and turn the other cheek, yet you are asking for a 'comeback.' You're full of it.
lol 'asking for a comeback' after telling me I can't read. Lots of vitamin I in that post.
Damn, 31% approval. This could have midterm implications for Republicans if they continue to push forward.
Trump tried to explain why he won’t ask FBI to investigate Kavanaugh. It made no sense.
The coverup continues.
“Well, it would seem that the FBI really doesn’t do that,” Trump said. “They’ve investigated [Kavanaugh via background checks] about six times before.”
But as a reporter pointed out to Trump, the bureau would investigate if the president asked them to.
There’s direct precedent for this.
In 1991, when Anita Hill made sexual harassment allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, President Bush directed the FBI “to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation.”
The president immediately changed his tune, ignoring the question and instead punting the matter to Republican senators.
“Well, I would let the senators take their course,” Trump said. “Let the senators do it. They’re doing a very good job.”
Trump went on to say that the allegation “is hurting someone’s life very badly.”
But he was referring to Kavanaugh, not Ford, who has been besieged with death threats and targeted harassment
Chris Strohm @cstrohmFollowFollow@cstrohm
Bloomberg News:
The FBI did not tell Trump or anyone else at the White House that
the bureau doesn’t want to be involved in an investigation of allegations against Kavanaugh,
according to a person familiar with the matter.
6:36 PM - 18 Sep 2018
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-kava...-ecf1767677db/
POS- sexual assaulter in chief knows exactly what he is doing. He knows that only he can authorize the FBI to look into the new allegations - and he knows that it is the last thing he wants to do. He needs Kavanaugh because Kavanaugh is the sure thing - regarding giving him complete power to be a pos criminal and get away with it.
This will be a sham confirmation this week and they will pay at the polls on Nov 6.
This is just an interesting issue. Forget that Democrats have already convicted Kavanaugh. Forget that Republicans only give facial credence (meaning they think Ford needs to be heard) to the claims.
For Ford:
- Hard to believe someone would put themselves out there like this (you know the death threats are coming even if they aren't credible because there are too many morons out there)
- She obviously knew Kavanaugh because she knew him and his friends and includes them in her allegation
- The story is not obviously false. There are witnesses (even though none take her side...which is kind of what you'd expect) and there is no actual rape, only the accusation that it was interpreted by her as attempted rape
- It's during the Me Too movement where people have thrown concepts of due process and presumed innocence out the door
-References to a therapist before Kavanaugh was ever nominated (even though the sessions never mention him by name and get the number of people in the room wrong in saying 4 over 2)
On the Flip Side
- Kavanaugh obviously denies and gets a host of character witnesses
- Ford can't name the time, place, or location so Kavanaugh is forced to prove a negative, which is impossible without those details
- Dems sat on the story making it look political and are now using it to force some kind of FBI investigation when the FBI has no jurisdiction (no federal crime was alleged), which obviously also looks like more of a political ploy
- 35 years...the statute of frauds has already run and the likelihood of evidence every coming forward to substantiate the claims is near impossible
- Ford is unwilling to testify or give even basic facts that could substantiate her claim
- If she succeeds in delaying the hearing to the midterms and Kavanaugh is not convicted, she will be a hero to the left and hit the television circuit to share her story and advocate for Me Too and make $$$ on the thinnest of accusations (and if Kavanaugh is not confirmed...people will completely drop this off the radar).
And at the end of the day, everyone knows that ultimately this ends with a he said/she said. No evidence. All the witnesses favor Kavanaugh, but it's kind of what you'd expect of the witnesses. There is no proof that Kavanaugh was ever in the same room with Ford. This is a case that the local authorities would drop in a second because there is no way to get a conviction. But in the Me Too era, Kavanaugh will stand convicted of attempted rape by half of the population in the U.S. based on one vague allegation and not one other person has come forward and said "Me too." Fascinating.
Patrick J. Smyth sent a letter to Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and top Democrat Dianne Feinstein in which he denies seeing any “improper conduct” by Kavanaugh, a classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, according to CNN, which obtained a copy of the letter.
The committee, which oversees Supreme Court nominations, has called a hearing for Monday in which both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, could testify.
Ford’s lawyers said on Tuesday, however, that she wants her allegations to be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation before she appears at a U.S. Senate hearing.
A Kavanaugh friend, Mark Judge, who Ford has also said was present during the assault, previously told Grassley through a lawyer he did not want to speak publicly. Judge, who has written about his teenage alcoholism, said he had no memory of party and had never seen Kavanaugh behave in the manner she described.
In the meantime, Smyth told the committee he volunteered the statement to safeguard his own privacy and anonymity.
“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his letter, CNN reported.
I am registered user. i don't give a about your feelings or pretend status.who is this guy, and why is he talking to me?
I disagree on a lot. You are absolutely favoring K - and using false info to reach that basis.
All that Ford and the Dems are asking for is an investigation - and then she will appear. She did not refuse to testify.
Ford
-She describes an attempted sexual assault and she gives the name of a 3rd person in the room - she did not have to - she could have made it a she said/he said - but instead gave a witness which is obviously K's friend and on his side.
- Me too - this is false -due process is what she is asking for, she is asking for an investigation. If she testifies under oath to the FBI and she is found to be lying, she can be prosecuted. Why would she knowingly subject herself to that risk? Presumed innocence - yes he can still be presumed until the facts are all known - what is his team afraid of? Why the rush? why conceal do ents?
- Therapist - so what? the fact that she was there pouring her guts out trying to fix herself is more telling than if the therapist wrote simple notes, or got something wrong - remember this was years before K was even being considered for any SC seat.
Flip Side -
-K denies/character witnesses - lol absurd.
- Ford can't name time/place - So? This is where the FBI pieces together what is missing. They scour the landscape, put bits together, find a witness no one else mentioned, someone steps up after seeing another news article, leads come in, people volunteer other relevant facts, etc
- Dems sat on the story - wrong - Feinstein was between a rock/hard place - the biggest thing to consider was the anonymity of the alleged victim - which had been strongly requested by the victim. Besides - this is completely irrelevant. Who cares about that? Oh, Trump and the corrupt GOP who spin everything - yet are completely OK with rushing a process when their own sexual assaulter in chief is under a criminal investigation and appears to want K solely - because K places the (R) President above the law. He refused to place (D) Clinton above the law - but this sexual assaulter in chief will have free reign to commit crimes.
-35 years - So what - have you never seen cold cases where investigators solve old crimes? Besides - he will not be convicted - the statutes wont allow - but at least the facts can be unearthed to make sure a qualified SC justice can be confirmed - or can be disqualified.
*also - this friend of his who sent a letter saying he will not testify? him. The FBI can talk to him under oath and see if he does not remember or if he just blacked out during this rape party and now cannot honestly recall it. Republicans are doing the same damn thing they did in the Russia hearings - they ask a Trump team member a question - the Trump guy refuses to answer and they just say "oh-ok -next witness." What kind of an investigation is that? This guy - K's friend - can be legally subpoenaed and forced to appear at the hearing. He won't be. Who looks crooked here - the Dems who want an investigation - a proper investigation - or the repugs who avoid one at all costs.
What is the rush?
The only way this ends in a he said/she said - is because the Republicans will avoid finding the truth, not allow an investigation and continue their corruption.
Yes. It is a very interesting issue.
Nov. 6th will be the real verdict.
Sorry, but this will always end in he said/she said. For one, it happened 35 years ago. The reason we have a statute of limitations is because we know that over the course of time, evidence becomes harder and harder to gather and becomes less and less reliable. So this allegation, without a time or place, makes an investigation impossible. It is he said/she said at its essence. If this were brought to the DA, it would immediately be dropped. Sending it to the FBI is just a political ploy. For one, the FBI has no jurisdiction because no federal crime was committed. At most it would be a state crime and the local DA would have to investigate. For two, what can the FBI investigate? The witnesses on Kavanaugh's side say they deny anything like this ever happened. She has no witnesses and can't provide a time or place for them to investigate and see if stories corroborate. So what is the FBI going to investigate? What are they going to ask?
I think the story does sound credible. I'm not saying it happened. It could be completely false, as Diane Feinstein admitted. But it does sound credible, which is why it is an interesting case. But if she doesn't testify, I think it all just ends up looking political given all the other ploys the Dems have used. That really hurts her allegation. It's not so much what she said, but the timing.
I do think having a third witness does make her story interesting. For one, she would have to know that Kavanaugh would be friends with Judge at least to make that allegation. And it does lend some credence because claiming someone was in the room other than the two of them knowing that the someone is going to take Kavanaugh's side would seem to be a bad idea to lie about. At the same time, because of how this is being used politically, it could just as easy be spun to say that the detail was included intentionally to make the story look more legit.
It's just an interesting case. I have no idea if Kavanaugh is wrong accused or guilty as . I think under the law he is innocent. I think public opinion depends on how you are registered to vote.
What Ford is trying to do is delay this tell midterms
god forbid a nomination should ever be delayed for political reasons
That's fair. But I see more legitimacy in Republicans doing that to Garland. No political pundit though Trump would win and if Hillary won, she would have nominated someone more left wing than Garland. There was no rule that the Republicans couldn't delay the hearings, even if it screwed Garland unfairly. That's the cost of Obama losing the Senate.
If this turns out to be a hoax, then it would be extremely underhanded and usher in a new kind of politics that I'm sure both sides would engage in that would divide the country even more. I mean, to delay because you control the Senate is one thing, but to make up a hoax story to destroy someone's credibility knowing it was false, well that would be really bad. Trump bad. Or maybe even worse than Trump. Well, probably just Trump bad. Of course, that's only assuming this is a hoax. It's just that there is no way to know with or without a hearing. And we all know that if a police force investigated (or even if the FBI did it even though they have no jurisdiction) they would eventually say there is not sufficient evidence to bring any charges because there isn't. Not in a criminal way. And the matter would go away except for the most extreme people that have already convicted him based on an allegation only. But that's only the left version of the right's Obama birth certificate crowd.
So much wrong here.
The only - only reason this will end up in a he said/she said (and I do agree it will end up that way) - but the only reason is because the Repugs refuse to allow the investigation. The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigations) according to Trump - no longer does this sort of things. Think of that for a minute. The liar in chief already convinced YOU that somehow the FBI does not do investigations. Do your research. The FBI is authorized to re-open his background check because obviously- they missed this - and obviously -new information has come to light. But.
There is only one person on the planet that could authorize this re-opening- yup - the sexual assaulter in chief who want nothing more than to BURY this investigation and all sexual assaults of any Republican. So there will be no FBI re-opening of this investigation only because the corrupt Repugs are hiding the truth.
If you look at the instances of how K perjured himself several times already under oath - this begs for the re-opening of the investigation but again - the truth, the facts, the credibility of the chosen SC justices are irrelevant to Republicans. A win for their criminal sexual assaulter in chief is all that the brainwashed zombie senators care about.
you're assuming the allegation isn't bona fide without any good cause -- the same can't be said for Birtherism.But that's only the left version of the right's Obama birth certificate crowd.
"Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that
Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously.
People worry, without apparent evidence, of another Ronan Farrow bomb dropping.
One source says
Ivanka Trump has told her father to “cut bait” and drop Kavanaugh.
Another reason Trump hasn’t gone to the mat for Kavanaugh is that he’s said to be su ious of Kavanaugh’s establishment pedigree.
“‘He’s a Bush guy, why would I put myself out there defending him?’”
Trump told people, according to a former White House official briefed on the conversations.
Trump also has expressed frustration with White House counsel Don McGahn, who aggressively lobbied for him to choose Kavanaugh, a source said.
“Trump wants this guy on the court, but
Trump knows there are five other people he could put on the court if this falls apart,” a former official said.
-snip-
Even before the Kavanaugh crisis, Trump has been worried about Republicans’ declining fortunes, and he’s been finding ways to shift the blame.
Trump told a friend in the Oval Office last week that
it would be Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan’s fault if Republicans lost the House and the Senate,
according to a person familiar with the conversation.
“This is the election about Ryan and McConnell—it’s about those guys,” Trump said.
Trump referred to his 2020 campaign as “the real election.”
“It’s pure Trump. He has to come up with a way he’s not responsible if Republicans lose,”
a former West Wing staffer said."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...tail=emaildkre
5 Former Prosecutors List Reasons Christine Blasey Ford's Accusation Against Kavanaugh is Credible.
Their reasons for finding Ford credible?
- Corroboration _ Ford told her therapist in 2012, four years before Trump was elected and six before Kavanaugh was nominated.
- Ford passed a polygraph, which, while inadmissible in court, is frequently used by the FBI to gauge witness credibility.
- Ford has no motive to subject herself to what she knew would be a searing ordeal save to warn the nation about Kavanaugh’s lack of character.
- Ford placed Mark Judge in the room where the attack occurred despite knowing Judge was a good friend of Kavanaugh and likely to lie for him if he thought he could get away with it.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/19/1796897/-5-Former-Prosecutors-List-Reasons-Christine-Blasey-Ford-s-Accusation-Against-Kavanaugh-is-Credible?detail=emaildkre
What do you think an investigation will turn up? I think you are watching too much TV. If she can't name the place or the time, what can the FBI do? All it can do is question people, but with no facts other than an allegation that something happened somewhere at sometime 35 years ago, what can they do. There was no rape so there is no DNA test. They don't have a location to see if it could be verified if any of them were ever there. They have no time period to determine where Ford was and where Kavanaugh was to even see if it was theoretically possible. This can only end as he said/she said with every named "witness" claiming that nothing like that ever happened. The FBI has nothing to investigate and is only being mentioned to cause a delay.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you used any legal standard from preponderance of the evidence to beyond reasonable doubt, there is not enough evidence for a conviction. So if you conclude the story is true without any evidence other than a story that could be believable, then you are acting irrationally. Just like it's believable that Obama, based on his family history could have been born in Kenya, but the only evidence that exists shows that is plainly false.
I might agree with you if 15 other women came forward, but that's just not the case.
Yep. If she doesnt show Monday they need to go for cloture and a vote.
A confirmation hearing isn't a court. Judicial standards of proof do not and never have applied.
Senators vote their conscience. That's it.
Pure political determination. Always has been, always will.
the only thing that has changed is norms.
there's much less deference to the executive or to professional qualifications.
Poll: Support for Kavanaugh was really low ... and then it dropped some more
Support for Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed to the Supreme Court was historically low before sexual assault allegations surfaced against him.
That support is getting lower.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds just
31 percent support for Kavanaugh,
with 36 percent of people opposed.
That opposition had risen six points from an August poll.
Even among Republicans, Kavanaugh has just 64 percent support.
For a bit of perspective, that makes him more unpopular than any nominee in the last three decades.
Even Harriet Miers (who was also -1) reached approval levels in the 40s.
Even Robert Bork was more popular, at a +3 approval.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1796919
C'mon man, seriously?
It is not rocket science. How many crimes looked unsolvable, no witnesses, no tape, too long ago, etc?
The FBI has experts that can find avenues to the truth. Their questioning might trigger a memory - which can lead to a kernel of a lead. This could come from her, from the other witness, from K.
They can piece together and actually discover that a party did take place, then they trace that. Then the attendees, then the address. There will be dead ends. There will be breakthroughs.
Say they come back empty. What is the harm? They can say - not enough evidence and then K can be confirmed with no stain to his record.
Say they come back with some additional facts - and then after having these facts - K - or Ford - get asked about these facts and one of them lies under oath?
So many ways this could end up - but at least the truth will emerge.
Trump will not authorize this. He will bury it. Spin it. Lie to your face and you will believe the liar with over 5,000 lies on his resume since taking an oath.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions