Duane wrote:
The D's are not interested in moving this along, just want to keep stringing the process out.
As Trollminator pointed out, yes. They're politicians, that's what they do. Many in the D base see this as a very important fight and would be extremely unhappy if they didn't try to stall the nomination past the midterm. Probably more than a few want want payback for the stunt Rs pulled with Merrick Garland.
Duane wrote:
"No amount of politics should water down this..." "Allegations need to be taken seriously" Apparently Feinstein gets a pass on this for sitting on it for 6 weeks , and to this day refusing to let the Rs see the unredacted letter which was the accusation.
Nope. Feinstein does not get a pass. Her timing was pure political play. And I despise her for it.
BUT, that doesn't change anything regarding the seriousness or relevance of the charges.
Nice straw man, though. Good job!
Fat hurts wrote:
Racket wrote:
That's a risky doubling down right before midterms. Unless there's additional very damning evidence that hasn't been released to the public then there's pretty much no way they'd get a conviction. It's be painted as an obvious stall tactic and as being anti-male which is exactly the kind of thing that energizes the base. I think it could turn a lot of independents to vote R in November as well.
You are saying an FBI investigation would be anti-male? So just looking into this in an honest way would energize independents?
I don't think so. The investigation would only take a few days.
If an FBI investigation turns up nothing, this all goes away and Kavenaugh sails through.
If an FBI investigation uncovers corroborating evidence then we avoid potentially putting a rapist on the supreme court.
In a well-functioning democracy, that's the way it should work.
This ^
Duane wrote:
Actually the committee staff on the R side interviewed all of the potential witnesses that have been id'd so far under penalty of perjury = "PJ", "Judge", Kavanaugh. I believe they even reached out to this former classmate who put that post on Facebook and then removed it - the one about the rumors around school that this had occurred. But it turns out she had no direct knowledge nor and knowledge that it was Kavanaugh. The D staff were invited to participate and ask their own questions and declined. The D's are not interested in moving this along, just want to keep stringing the process out.
Sorry. An investigation by committee staff (on either side) doesn't count. One of those committee staffers just tweeted with the hashtag #ConfirmKavanaugh.
That's hardly an unbiased investigation.
Racket wrote:
I'd also like to point out that the investigation hasn't even started and you have people from both sides and in the middle screaming at each like crazy already!
Yes, but some of the screaming is that there should be an investigation vs some screaming it's too late to investigate, let's have a vote already.
And if we get to a hearing, the Republicans are looking for a woman for outside council for the questioning.
That's because of the 11 Republicans in the committee, they do not have a single woman.(just 11 white men if you include Ted Cruz as white) .
Where 4 of the 10 Democrats on the committee are women (3 out of 10 of color).
ok, my last post here as this board is full of morons. Actually, the committee staff is exactly who does these investigations of the nominees. They have a budget just for this, both Ds and Rs. The Rs are trying to move this. The Ds are entrenched, and for that matter do not seem to even care about more facts. "I believe her" by Blumenthal. Has not heard from her. Has not questioned anyone else. Apparently does not need to - just her written accusation is enough. This is not about Dr Ford. This is just a delay tactic. And if you tarnish a sitting District Court judge with an exploratory record in the process with no proof, I guess that is ok. The ends justify the means. Nothing will ever pass the Senate again that takes 60 votes until one party or the other has the 60 votes.
Duane wrote:
ok, my last post here as this board is full of morons. Actually, the committee staff is exactly who does these investigations of the nominees. They have a budget just for this, both Ds and Rs. The Rs are trying to move this. The Ds are entrenched, and for that matter do not seem to even care about more facts. "I believe her" by Blumenthal. Has not heard from her. Has not questioned anyone else. Apparently does not need to - just her written accusation is enough. This is not about Dr Ford. This is just a delay tactic. And if you tarnish a sitting District Court judge with an exploratory record in the process with no proof, I guess that is ok. The ends justify the means. Nothing will ever pass the Senate again that takes 60 votes until one party or the other has the 60 votes.
Wrong. The FBI does background checks on matters like this. That is the way it has always been done.
Committee staff investigations are done in a partisan way, as they are extensions of the political process. That's OK for what it is.
The FBI is trained to do background checks and investigations. Committee staffers have no such training. Despite "deep state" conspiracy theories, the FBI generally does really good work. That's why we always trust them to do these kinds of unbiased investigations for any nominee that comes before the senate.
"Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation,"
Duane wrote:
ok, my last post here as this board is full of morons. Actually, the committee staff is exactly who does these investigations of the nominees. They have a budget just for this, both Ds and Rs. The Rs are trying to move this. The Ds are entrenched, and for that matter do not seem to even care about more facts. "I believe her" by Blumenthal. Has not heard from her. Has not questioned anyone else. Apparently does not need to - just her written accusation is enough. This is not about Dr Ford. This is just a delay tactic. And if you tarnish a sitting District Court judge with an exploratory record in the process with no proof, I guess that is ok. The ends justify the means. Nothing will ever pass the Senate again that takes 60 votes until one party or the other has the 60 votes.
Ok, dude. Do us a favor and keep your word on this!
Flagpole wrote:
"This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water."
- The Orange One
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3rhQc666Sg
Better watch what you say or Jim Cantore may come out and rip you a new one like he did last time.
Statutes wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Not sure if you are being serious or not, but he's not in danger of being charged with a crime. Statute of limitations has long passed.
Maryland does not have a statute of limitations for sex crimes.
Hmm...you are CORRECT! I apologize unreservedly.
Fat hurts wrote:
Statutes wrote:
Maryland does not have a statute of limitations for sex crimes.
This is why I've been saying that this thread has fabricated facts at an astonishing rate. There is so much "information" swirling around this story that it's hard to tell which end is up.
"Statues" is right. It turns out that Kavanaugh can still be charged in Maryland.
This gives Dr. Ford's legal team a bit of leverage. They can tell Grassley's committee that if Republicans are too afraid to let the FBI uncover the facts then Dr. Ford can press charges in Maryland. At that point, law enforcement in Maryland will do a full investigation and the facts will come out anyway.
Yep. Statues is indeed correct, and I was mistaken. I bet Kavanaugh wishes he went to high school in another state, most of which have statutes of limitations of just a few years on such crimes. Makes an interesting twist here.
FBI does background checks not investigations on individuals seeking employment. There is a difference. Background checks and an investigation is not the same thing. Sexual assault cases go through the locals. Kavanaughs background check was done a long time ago.
Outside of interviewing who supposedly were at this party, I have no clue what case you have? Very circumstantial. All in all statutes of limitations passed a long time ago.
Personally this whole thing is a scam to do two things. 1. Delay this past the mid term. 2. If you can’t delay past the mid terms try to change the minds of Collins, Flake, Murkowski, etc. Senators who are always naturally on the fence.
"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place," Trump tweeted.
So much for Trump's highly reviewed restraint.
Now he's back in his comfort zone - attacking the victim and pissing off women.
Flagpole wrote:
Yep. Statues is indeed correct, and I was mistaken. I bet Kavanaugh wishes he went to high school in another state, most of which have statutes of limitations of just a few years on such crimes. Makes an interesting twist here.
Look, I'm all for hating the guy and think he's not good for the position, but why accuse him or act like he's guilty of this? You know what most judges would do if you accuse someone of sexual assault in high school 35 years ago with only vague recollection as evidence? They'd laugh at you and tell you not to waste the court's time.
It's serious allegation considering he might be a Supreme Court justice, and that means the accuser has a serious burden of proof on her.
He's shady guy who I don't think should serve on the bench of the Supreme Court, but I'm not gonna call him a sexual predator yet.
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
FBI does background checks not investigations on individuals seeking employment. There is a difference. Background checks and an investigation is not the same thing. Sexual assault cases go through the locals. Kavanaughs background check was done a long time ago.
Outside of interviewing who supposedly were at this party, I have no clue what case you have? Very circumstantial. All in all statutes of limitations passed a long time ago.
Personally this whole thing is a scam to do two things. 1. Delay this past the mid term. 2. If you can’t delay past the mid terms try to change the minds of Collins, Flake, Murkowski, etc. Senators who are always naturally on the fence.
There is no doubt that Democrats are trying to use this to their political advantage.
There is also no doubt that Republicans are trying to take serious allegations and sweep them under the carpet by quashing any trustworthy investigation. They just want to get someone confirmed before they possibly lose the senate.
What is lost is that the American people are harmed by the rush to judgement on both sides. The facts are going to all come out eventually. Reporters are going to stay on this story for a long time no matter what happens. It's better to gather those facts immediately, in an unbiased, comprehensive way through the FBI.
I'll say it again.
Americans need to have some level of confidence that we are not putting a rapist on the supreme court.
Bizarre world wrote:
There is significantly more evidence to suggest this is a politically-motivated hit job
True.
Trump knew who the woman was three days before she was forced to out herself. He got a NON-retracted letter from he FBI, as well as a retraced version to "officially" pass along.
Trump is guilty as hell in abusing this rape victim.
I hear your concern but I’m also not confident in the fbi to conduct any investigation right now. They have lost all faith and trust in me. The upper management is my problem, not their rank and file.
Racket wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Yep. Statues is indeed correct, and I was mistaken. I bet Kavanaugh wishes he went to high school in another state, most of which have statutes of limitations of just a few years on such crimes. Makes an interesting twist here.
Look, I'm all for hating the guy and think he's not good for the position, but why accuse him or act like he's guilty of this? You know what most judges would do if you accuse someone of sexual assault in high school 35 years ago with only vague recollection as evidence? They'd laugh at you and tell you not to waste the court's time.
It's serious allegation considering he might be a Supreme Court justice, and that means the accuser has a serious burden of proof on her.
He's shady guy who I don't think should serve on the bench of the Supreme Court, but I'm not gonna call him a sexual predator yet.
Neither is anybody else.
Straw man much?
Duane wrote:
if a jury would convict him based on the version of events we have heard so far (no corroboration, "witnesses" and accused deny it, no evidence, no idea when or where this occured), this country is in bad shape.
You need to move to Russia.
The laws are set up to protect VICTIMS. Not to protect criminals. There is such legal excuse as: No one saw me do it. Or, I was drunk. Or, I only killed one person, not more.