Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:

Actually I got it from Real Clear Politics but anyways all we are doing is talking in circles. Lets wait for the FBI report tomorrow.

That’s the mlbtraderumors of politics.  They just link to articles at both sides of the political spectrum.  A small amount is original content from their own writing staff, 90% is not.

So simply being linked there doesn’t mean it’s not right or left wing publication.  Where does the content originate?

 

If the FBI report isn’t comprehensive (and lots of witnesses/lines of questioning are being excluded) and has been “politically guided/massaged” by the Trump Administration, what real probitive value does it actually have?

Edited October 4, 2018 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

On 9/28/2018 at 5:29 PM, Balta1701 said:

Apparently what everyone is wondering now, and what we don't know, is how they will set up the "investigation". It's entirely possible that they could ask the FBI to investigate the veracity of this claim by interviewing just the 2 who spoke yesterday and come back with a he-said, she-said story that says that the claims are "unverified", giving cover to Collins to vote for him. Basically, stacking the deck so that the result is the same as yesterday by avoiding any other witnesses or consideration of even the calendar that he handed over.

It's also possible that they could interview multiple relevant witnesses including the others who have issued sworn statements and assess whether it is likely that something happened, as would be done on a high level security clearance style background check, if Collins or Flake are actually insisting on a strong investigation to guarantee their vote. If that were done, based on everything that's available they'd probably come back by saying "we can't establish exactly how this particular event occurred but it is likely that there was more than one incident involving Kavanaugh that was inappropriate", which would put then those senators on the spot of having to either vote for a guy who crossed the line or torpedo his investigation.

 

[Balta1701]

16 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

That’s the mlbtraderumors of politics.  They just link to articles at both sides of the political spectrum.  A small amount is original content from their own writing staff, 90% is not.

So simply being linked there doesn’t mean it’s not right or left wing publication.  Where does the content originate?

 

If the FBI report isn’t comprehensive (and lots of witnesses/lines of questioning are being excluded) and has been “politically guided/massaged” by the Trump Administration, what real probitive value does it actually have?

See above post from Friday.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

13 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

One acted civil and respectful in their testimony while the other acted like a petulant child. Given who suffered the trauma in this situation (not even Kavanaugh was stupid enough to suggest that Blasey-Ford wasn't sexually assaulted), I'm surprised by which party falls into which category. That said, there are several times where Kavanaugh's sworn testimony contradicted either previous sworn testimony (similarly to Jeff Sessions's "I never met with anyone from Russia!"..."Except for all those times I met with someone from Russia.") or documentation that Kavanaugh submitted into evidence himself in an attempt to prove his innocence (such as the calendar example I gave previously). To suggest that Kavanaugh hasn't perjured himself is just willful ignorance of his testimony at this point.

Yeah so I'm going to have to disagree. I think it seems quite likely that Brett underplayed his level of drinking, but that's not perjury. Nor is any sort of calendar conflict, such as...

10 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

There is at least one clear as daylight lie, FWIW. He handed over a calendar from when he was 17 showing him having 'skis. Under oath he claimed that he never drank under age. He was 17 at the time of the calendar in 1982. He further testified that the legal drinking age in Maryland was 18 at the time, and it was changed to 21 when he was 17 years old. So, provably based on the documents he handed over, he lied about drinking underage. 

I mean, we have taken to interpereting some shorthand on a calendar that may or may not mean what you think on an event that may have occurred within the year prior to him reaching the drinking age, and he may not have recalled the timing exactly? GImme a break, this is not a "clear as daylight lie". A lie requires conscious falsehood and you can't prove that here.

There are no "proven lies", at least not yet. Everyone can just stop that B.S.

 

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Yeah so I'm going to have to disagree. I think it seems quite likely that Brett underplayed his level of drinking, but that's not perjury. Nor is any sort of calendar conflict, such as...

I mean, we have taken to interpereting some shorthand on a calendar that may or may not mean what you think on an event that may have occurred within the year prior to him reaching the drinking age, and he may not have recalled the timing exactly? GImme a break, this is not a "clear as daylight lie". A lie requires conscious falsehood and you can't prove that here.

There are no "proven lies", at least not yet. Everyone can just stop that B.S.

 

He testified personally that he attended parties with alcohol under questioning when he was 17 and handed over a calendar and took questions about that when he was 17 then also asserted he did not drink under age.

Quote

BOOKER: I’m — I’m talking about the calendars that you provided during these dates.

KAVANAUGH: Oh, that’s in the — in the summer after a football work out when we went over to…

BOOKER: You drank on weekdays, yes or no, sir?

KAVANAUGH: … In the summer when we went over to Timmy’s house (ph) on July 1st, that would indicate, yes.

BOOKER: Yes, in other words, that — that July 1st reference to skis — went over for skis — that’s brewskis, correct?

KAVANAUGH: And after Tobin’s (ph)…

BOOKER: Sir — sir, I just need a yes or no. That — brewskis, right?

KAVANAUGH: … Well, I need to explain context.

BOOKER: You just said sir that you drank on weekdays. That’s all I was looking for.

KAVANAUGH: Well, no, that’s — you’re…

BOOKER: If I may — if I may ask — if I may ask the next question, sir? You said clearly on the record, I just want you to restate it that you never in your life, after drinking heavily to the point of throwing up — and, again, you said you had a weak stomach — you said you never had gaps in memories. Never had any loses what so ever. Never had foggy recollection about what happened. Is that correct, sir, yes or no?

KAVANAUGH: … That’s — that’s what I said.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

29 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Yeah so I'm going to have to disagree. I think it seems quite likely that Brett underplayed his level of drinking, but that's not perjury. Nor is any sort of calendar conflict, such as...

I mean, we have taken to interpereting some shorthand on a calendar that may or may not mean what you think on an event that may have occurred within the year prior to him reaching the drinking age, and he may not have recalled the timing exactly? GImme a break, this is not a "clear as daylight lie". A lie requires conscious falsehood and you can't prove that here.

There are no "proven lies", at least not yet. Everyone can just stop that B.S.

 

boof and devil's triangle are proven lies. 

[Dam8610]

30 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Yeah so I'm going to have to disagree. I think it seems quite likely that Brett underplayed his level of drinking, but that's not perjury. Nor is any sort of calendar conflict, such as...

I mean, we have taken to interpereting some shorthand on a calendar that may or may not mean what you think on an event that may have occurred within the year prior to him reaching the drinking age, and he may not have recalled the timing exactly? GImme a break, this is not a "clear as daylight lie". A lie requires conscious falsehood and you can't prove that here.

There are no "proven lies", at least not yet. Everyone can just stop that B.S.

 

Well, if you refuse to accept the reality that lies are lies, then I can see how you can maintain that no one has "proven" that Kavanaugh lied, because your standard of proof is impossible.

[Dick Allen]

His college roommate calling him a liar. More acquaintances trying to contact the FBI to call out his lies. Seriously GOP, this is the best you can do?

[Dick Allen]

Give him a polygraph. Ask him about his drinking the alleged assault. Boof, Devils Triangle, Renate Alumnus, and FFFFFFourth of July. If he passes, he gets to be a Supreme Court Justice. Seems pretty fair.  He himself wrote polygraphs were useful.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Dick Allen

[whitesoxfan99]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates

 

I’m shocked that this is a sham allegation being conducted by the FBI. V 

[Dick Allen]

6 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates

 

I’m shocked that this is a sham allegation being conducted by the FBI. V 

Their hands are tied. It's all coming from the WH.  Of course Liar in Chief tries to sell it as no restrictions. Just like the rest of his existence, phony. My lawyer wife knew exactly how this was going to go down when they announced it. She said the only good thing was it was buying time for more to come out. More has come out, but unless someone actually has video, and even that might not be enough, nothing will change.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Dick Allen

[whitesoxfan99]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146

[GoSox05]

This FBI investigation is a joke, it's only to give cover for Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse.  They were never not going to vote for him. 

[wrathofhahn]

12 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

 Y the way, the friend she supposedly coached in the letter you posted, said it wasn’t true. Of course that letter named her and redacted the name of the person who supposedly wrote it, 

Which is why like I said until we hear from the person she allegedly coached and the supposed other witness we shouldn't hold up the information as true. I am not surprised she denied it however for obvious reasons she'd be admitting to a felony otherwise.

 

23 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/dozens-potential-sources-information-have-not-been-contacted-fbi-kavanaugh-n916146

Of course there are time constraints now (aka an election). Had the democrats turned over the letter to the committee months ago then the FBI would have had the time to run a through full investigation PRIOR to both Ford and Kavanuagh appearing before the committee and members would have had a better idea of the facts and the veracity of the charges. I guess you have to ask yourself why that didn't happen? I mean I have my answer what is yours?

Edited October 4, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[whitesoxfan99]

Just now, wrathofhahn said:

Of course there are time constraints now (aka an election). Had the democrats turned over the letter to the committee months ago then the FBI would have had the time to run a through full investigation PRIOR to both Ford and Kavanuagh appearing before the committee and members would have had a better idea of the facts and the veracity of the charges. I guess you have to ask yourself why that didn't happen? I mean I have my answer what is yours?

Hahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahaahahahahaahahahaahah

That's my response to your partisan nonsense.

[Dick Allen]

8 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Which is why like I said until we hear from the person she allegedly coached and the supposed other witness we shouldn't hold up the information as true. I am not surprised she denied it however for obvious reasons she'd be admitting to a felony otherwise.

 

Of course there are time constraints now (aka an election). Had the democrats turned over the letter to the committee months ago then the FBI would have had the time to run a through full investigation PRIOR to both Ford and Kavanuagh appearing before the committee and members would have had a better idea of the facts and the veracity of the charges. I guess you have to ask yourself why that didn't happen? I mean I have my answer what is yours?

They also only have 1 copy of the report. 1 copy. So if each Senator wants to read it all before they vote.....So quit the dems are playing games bit. Merrick Garland is all you need to know. Using Republican logic, they shouldn't be voting or discussing Kavanaugh until after the election. And your conservative judge Trump nominated that was confirmed didn't have all these accusations. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Dick Allen

[wrathofhahn]

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

They also only have 1 copy of the report. 1 copy. So if each Senator wants to read it all before they vote.....So quit the dems are playing games bit. Merrick Garland is all you need to know. And your conservative judge Trump nominated that was confirmed didn't have all these accusations. 

Well they are so I won't quit saying it. Noone believes if the investigation runs past the election that the democrats will vote for him even if he is cleared of the charges let alone if the investigation into the allegation is inconclusive. It's a stalling tactic everyone sees it and it's why democrats are starting to worry about some of their more vulnerable seats.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-you-dare-accuse-a-good-man-republicans-will-put-you-on-trial?ref=home

 

[Dick Allen]

11 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Well they are so I won't quit saying it. Noone believes if the investigation runs past the election that the democrats will vote for him even if he is cleared of the charges let alone if the investigation into the allegation is inconclusive. It's a stalling tactic everyone sees it and it's why democrats are starting to worry about some of their more vulnerable seats.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-you-dare-accuse-a-good-man-republicans-will-put-you-on-trial?ref=home

 

Why are stalling tactics now bad?  There's an election coming up. I thought no vote would be standard under that circumstance. Nominate someone without these issues, and it would have gone through.

 

The very reason the are rushing this through is they know what is coming, and it isn't good for them.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Soxbadger]

4 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Well they are so I won't quit saying it. Noone believes if the investigation runs past the election that the democrats will vote for him even if he is cleared of the charges let alone if the investigation into the allegation is inconclusive. It's a stalling tactic everyone sees it and it's why democrats are starting to worry about some of their more vulnerable seats.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-you-dare-accuse-a-good-man-republicans-will-put-you-on-trial?ref=home

 

Yep red wave.

Lol 

If Republicans werent so afraid they wouldnt be doing this. They are the party of dinosaurs. Extinction will happen, its just a matter of when.

So keep clinging to power by any means necessary. Disrespect the US and everything it stands for. Your time will come.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Soxbadger

[whitesoxfan99]

12 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Well they are so I won't quit saying it. Noone believes if the investigation runs past the election that the democrats will vote for him even if he is cleared of the charges let alone if the investigation into the allegation is inconclusive. It's a stalling tactic everyone sees it and it's why democrats are starting to worry about some of their more vulnerable seats.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-you-dare-accuse-a-good-man-republicans-will-put-you-on-trial?ref=home

 

The sham FBI investigation ordered by Republicans because Jeff Flake is a coward who wanted cover for his cowardice is a Democrat stall tactic.  Got it. 

[chw42]

Welp he's getting confirmed. Supreme court is gonna be fucked for who knows how long. 

Good to know the investigation was a total sham. There should have never been any limits on who they can talk to. You can limit it in time (that's fine), but to limit it to exactly what can be investigated is a sham. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by chw42

[Dick Allen]

He did nothing wrong. Why are they so afraid?

 

• This FBI's work is not public. It will likely never be public. There will be no summary. There will be no release.
• There are 109 people who have clearance to access what was delivered to Capitol Hill at 2:30 Thursday morning -- 100 senators, four majority committee staffers and four minority committee staffers, one committee clerk. That's it.
• There is a single copy of the FBI's findings. It is currently in a vault, in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility -- or SCIF, if you'd like to use the Washington short hand. It cannot leave the room.
• Senators can't bring their phones into the SCIF when they go to review the documents. If they take notes, the notes must be left in the room when the senator leaves.
• Senators are not allowed to discuss or characterize in detail what they've read (though they most certainly will try.)

[caulfield12]

Meanwhile, Sasse/Flake/Murkowski/Collins can all pretend to be more principled...defending the values of the Constitution, uniting the country, etc.

 

[Soxbadger]

This is totally normal. Why would the public be entitled to information on someone who is going to make decisions that will impact all Americans for potentially the next 20+ years.

Completely reasonable.

And of course there is only 1 copy, most of the Republican's on the judiciary committee grew up before copy machines existed. We are turning back time to a better age. 

[wrathofhahn]

14 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

This is totally normal. Why would the public be entitled to information on someone who is going to make decisions that will impact all Americans for potentially the next 20+ years.

Completely reasonable.

And of course there is only 1 copy, most of the Republican's on the judiciary committee grew up before copy machines existed. We are turning back time to a better age. 

Diane Fienstein decided for months to withhold a vital piece of information from not only the public but also her fellow senators so maybe this is the new normal. I for one hope the report is released eventhough it was limed in scope due to time constraints we should be aware of the FBI findings.

The only reason I can think of not doing so is to protect the privacy of those witnesses who cooperated with the FBI but even if the full report can't be released surely the summary of their findings can.

Grassley statement on the report:

“I’ve now received a committee staff briefing on the FBI’s supplement to Judge Kavanaugh’s background investigation file. There’s nothing in it that we didn’t already know. These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations. There’s also no contemporaneous evidence. This investigation found no hint of misconduct and the same is true of the six prior FBI background investigations conducted during Judge Kavanaugh’s 25 years of public service.”

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by wrathofhahn