J.C.MacSwell Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 13 minutes ago, Ten oz said: That is an okay start but to a large extend are the Senate hearings rife with political bias? I think professional investigators rather than Senators in the middle of election season would be a superior group to get to the bottom of this. Absolutely. Toxic on both sides. But that is their job. This can still be taken to court if Ford could build a case and choose to go that route. She would not be treated in court with kip gloves as she was yesterday but she certainly would be well funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted September 28, 2018 Author Share Posted September 28, 2018 One post that gave me that impression, Zapatos, is this one... "Kavanaugh may have painted himself into a corner by denying, and then painting himself as a choir boy in his interview. That may have triggered former targets of his into coming forward. And once a few people have done that, I think the bar is lowered for others (if there are more, but there usually are) to do so. I think his only way out is to withdraw, because if they republicans push this through, the democrats will have grounds to impeach (should they ever gain the necessary numbers) and then prosecute him. By that point there will be clearer evidence that he lied to congress and/or perjured himself. " But, as I said it is only an impression, and I could be wrong. If you need to know who posted it, you are welcome to go back and find it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 Okay, I see your point. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: Absolutely. Toxic on both sides. But that is their job. This can still be taken to court if Ford could build a case and choose to go that route. She would not be treated in court with kip gloves as she was yesterday but she certainly would be well funded. The Senate can refer this to the FBI and FBI could make the appropriate recommendations related to court proceedings. We seem to be saying similar things yet for some reason you don't seem open to the Senate having professional investigators get involved, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said: That is a ridiculous reason to get an investigation rolling. She would essentially have to admit she intentionally lied to get charged with perjury. If it is proven 100% that she made a false statement there is still a burden of proof that she made it intentionally. Right. The reason to get an investigation rolling is that there is a credible accusation, a named witness and corroborating evidence, not to mention that there are other incidents, and that something huge is at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted September 28, 2018 Author Share Posted September 28, 2018 As to your question Ten oz... "who suggested that ?" I believe it was yourself... "The claims should be investigated. Unfortunately it is Kavanough's supporters who do not want the FBI to get involved." Due process in this case would mean filing criminal charges against B Kavanough ( as has been pointed out by Swansont, Maryland has no Statute of Limitations ), and presenting valid evidence/testimony in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 1 minute ago, MigL said: As to your question Ten oz... "who suggested that ?" I believe it was yourself... "The claims should be investigated. Unfortunately it is Kavanough's supporters who do not want the FBI to get involved." I suggested nothing. I believe claims of sexual assault should be investigated and it is simply a matter of fact that many of those who support Kavanough do not want the FBI involved. I made no suggestion about why they don't want the FBI involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 16 minutes ago, MigL said: One post that gave me that impression, Zapatos, is this one... "Kavanaugh may have painted himself into a corner by denying, and then painting himself as a choir boy in his interview. That may have triggered former targets of his into coming forward. And once a few people have done that, I think the bar is lowered for others (if there are more, but there usually are) to do so. I think his only way out is to withdraw, because if they republicans push this through, the democrats will have grounds to impeach (should they ever gain the necessary numbers) and then prosecute him. By that point there will be clearer evidence that he lied to congress and/or perjured himself. " But, as I said it is only an impression, and I could be wrong. If you need to know who posted it, you are welcome to go back and find it I wrote that. How is it a "conviction"? It is a FACT that people have contradicted the picture he painted about the behavior he described in his interview. It is my observation that one or two people stepping forward (along with claims like "I never assaulted anyone" tend to bring forth more victims, if they exist. Again, how is this a "conviction"? (keeping in mind that this is not a trial. It is a job interview. You do not need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to decide to not hire someone. If the discussion had gone in that direction, I would have said "let the FBI investigate the claims" But no, you've convicted me of convicting Kavanaugh. ___ It is also clear that he has lied to congress, on multiple occasions, which would probably be grounds for impeachment, and this will become clearer once congress obtains records that have been denied them. This also has zero to do with the sexual assault allegations. You also stated Quote To suggest that B Kavanough's supporters don't want a lengthy investigation because they fear the results is not quite accurate.They realize there is a limited window of opportunity to get this nomination passed, and for those opposing his nomination, a stall is as good as a win. How is it that you "know" this? They have until January to confirm him, with the present lineup of the Senate. 7 minutes ago, MigL said: As to your question Ten oz... "who suggested that ?" I believe it was yourself... "The claims should be investigated. Unfortunately it is Kavanough's supporters who do not want the FBI to get involved." Due process in this case would mean filing criminal charges against B Kavanough ( as has been pointed out by Swansont, Maryland has no Statute of Limitations ), and presenting valid evidence/testimony in a court of law. Due process for a criminal investigation, which this is currently not. It is a confirmation hearing for SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, MigL said: Due process in this case would mean filing criminal charges against B Kavanough ( as has been pointed out by Swansont, Maryland has no Statute of Limitations ), and presenting valid evidence/testimony in a court of law. So until that happens you think this should all go away and Kavanough should be appointed, the Senate should delay a vote and hear from all 3 accusers, or what? That not not a rhetorical question. The train has left the station so to speak. Confirmation hearings are already up to speed on the rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 Judiciary Committee just voted 11 to 8 to proceed with the nomination. Now it goes to the broader senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, swansont said: How is it that you "know" this? They have until January to confirm him, with the present lineup of the Senate. Excellent point. The GOP have just over 3 months until 115th Congress ends. There is time to available to do right by all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted September 28, 2018 Author Share Posted September 28, 2018 I got that impression Tom because you seem certain that "By that point there will be clearer evidence that he lied to congress and/or perjured himself" Which makes it sound like you're convinced he's perjured himself. But if you say that isn't what you meant, I believe you. As for the length of FBI investigations... How long did the H Clinton E-mail probe last ? How long has the Trump/Russia collusion probe lasted, so far ? I simply presented an alternate reason for not wanting an FBI probe. As I've said, why not simply bring criminal charges against B Kavanough ? That would get rid of the impression that this is just a smear campaign, as it requires a much higher level of evidence. From INow's post I see that this has now become an 'us vs them' issue and Republicans will do all they can to ensure his confirmation. Even if it means having someone on the Supreme Court totally unsuitable for the job. Or even worse, a possible sexual predator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 I think it is worthwhile to repeat that this hearing is equivalent to a job interview. It is not about fact-finding, it is there to ascertain the suitability of Kavanaugh as a supreme court justice. FBI background investigations into the person are routine and are not part of a criminal investigation and as such not comparable to the collusion probe. The latter, btw. taking that long because, you know, a couple of criminal cases actually popped up. Here there is little chance of conviction and as such a background check would be pretty much the only thing one could do. And those tend to be fairly short. Also, even in the absence of any deeper probing, the way he deals with accusations is in my mind extremely important. Again, it is a job interview. It tells us more about his character and his possible performance as judge in the highest court of the country. The fact that he had trouble to own up to his minor misdemeanors (such as drinking too much) and only admitted it but still waffled, does not make me confident that he would judge others fairly. If someone references a lot MJ in their facebook post and waffles when questioned about marijuana use it is a red flag for hiring. After watching the hearings, it also does not seem like a guy who functions under pressure and he does have an enormous sense of entitlement (but is clearly not interested to agree into a deeper probe to exonerate himself). That all being said, it is quite likely that we will be confirmed regardless. It most likely will be the mirror of what happened with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ultimately, these accusations have demonstrated to hold relatively little power and if Blasey Ford did not come in as prepared as she was, she would have been taken apart. As such the committee had trouble to find obvious contradictions (at least compared to Kavanaugh). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 1 hour ago, MigL said: I got that impression Tom because you seem certain that "By that point there will be clearer evidence that he lied to congress and/or perjured himself" Which makes it sound like you're convinced he's perjured himself. But if you say that isn't what you meant, I believe you. We already know he has lied to congress. Numerous times. Documents will show if that number increases, and what the seriousness of the issues is. 1 hour ago, MigL said: As for the length of FBI investigations... Anita Hill's lasted 3 days 1 hour ago, MigL said: How long did the H Clinton E-mail probe last ? How long has the Trump/Russia collusion probe lasted, so far ? And how do the levels of complexity compare for these investigations? 1 hour ago, MigL said: I simply presented an alternate reason for not wanting an FBI probe. As I've said, why not simply bring criminal charges against B Kavanough ? Because there is the distinct possibility that there is not enough evidence to convict in a court of law, in which case a DA would not bring charges. But being convicted or not is not the metric for whether you hire or promote someone. 1 hour ago, MigL said: That would get rid of the impression that this is just a smear campaign, as it requires a much higher level of evidence. Find a factual basis to discredit the testimony by Dr. Blasey Ford. That would show this was a smear campaign. 1 hour ago, MigL said: From INow's post I see that this has now become an 'us vs them' issue and Republicans will do all they can to ensure his confirmation. Even if it means having someone on the Supreme Court totally unsuitable for the job. Or even worse, a possible sexual predator. Has become? It's been that way for years. Not just in this administration. This goes back to at least the GOP's declaration to oppose Obama's every move, 9 or 10 years ago. One could argue it's been in place since Clinton was president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 20 minutes ago, swansont said: Has become? It's been that way for years. Not just in this administration. This goes back to at least the GOP's declaration to oppose Obama's every move, 9 or 10 years ago. One could argue it's been in place since Clinton was president. Merrick Garland didn't even get the respect of hearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Merrick Garland didn't even get the respect of hearings. Another good man's future destroyed by uhm... old men? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 4 hours ago, Ten oz said: The Senate can refer this to the FBI and FBI could make the appropriate recommendations related to court proceedings. We seem to be saying similar things yet for some reason you don't seem open to the Senate having professional investigators get involved, why? I don't think the case has been made that it would make any difference beyond subpoenaing Mark Judge. Unless you are looking to find something outside of the alleged incident... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I don't think the case has been made that it would make any difference beyond subpoenaing Mark Judge. Unless you are looking to find something outside of the alleged incident... You mean Incidents ? Kavanaough has multiple accusers at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 17 minutes ago, Ten oz said: You mean Incidents ? Kavanaough has multiple accusers at this point. No. I meant the Ford incident only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 6 hours ago, iNow said: Judiciary Committee just voted 11 to 8 to proceed with the nomination. Now it goes to the broader senate. Wasn't it 11-10 (i.e. party line?). However, Flake apparently requested a one week delay to allow FBI inquiries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, CharonY said: Wasn't it 11-10 (i.e. party line?). However, Flake apparently requested a one week delay to allow FBI inquiries. Some refused to vote because of the bullshit-osity so pervasively embedded in the process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 16 minutes ago, iNow said: Some refused to vote because of the bullshit-osity so pervasively embedded in the process Really? I thought I read that all cast their vote with all Reps in favour and all Dems against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 1 hour ago, CharonY said: Really? I thought I read that all cast their vote with all Reps in favour and all Dems against. Senator Cory Booker and Senator Kamala Harris refused to vote in protest. The other 8 Dems voted no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 1 minute ago, iNow said: Senator Cory Booker and Senator Kamala Harris refused to vote in protest. The other 8 Dems voted no. Well, I stand corrected then. Probably just early onset of senility on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 28, 2018 Share Posted September 28, 2018 Helps that I watched it live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts