|
On September 19 2018 12:30 LegalLord wrote:
I haven’t been following this case besides what was talked about here, so I’m not sure if I’m missing anything? It sounds like the accusation is “his word against hers” at best, which is essentially a meaningless accusation, but then there’s at least a few questionable aspects of the story on top of that which would make one question its validity beyond that. And the response is... let’s start a fishing expedition to see if we could potentially uncover some dirt here? Should we always open an investigation the moment someone squeaks about something that potentially happened decades ago with no corroborating evidence whatsoever? I’m not seeing any logic beyond trying to disguise political expediency as an investigation into genuine wrongdoing.
Basically boils down to Democrats needing to find a way to diffuse responsibility.
This gives Democrats the deplorable Republicans that pshaw sexual assault allegations (no shit they elected Trump), Trump supporters yet more unfounded rumors meant to impede Trump, and "reasonable" people in "the middle" enough wiggle room to justify just enough skepticism or belief to rationalize their acceptance of the outcome.
The whole "investigation/hearing" does all of that rather well.
EDIT: So you're heitkamps can say "We wanted a full investigation, but the evil Republicans stopped it" while the "reasonable" Republicans can say "we wanted a full investigation but the accuser was not willing to answer our questions" or whatever.
Then people that vote for them (or tell others to) despite saying they don't represent their preferences, they'll say "they did what they could and they're better than the other side right!?".
EDIT 2: Politics in the Trump era reminds me of the rudimentary and formulaic nature of Power Ranger episodes.
|
On September 19 2018 12:30 LegalLord wrote:
I haven’t been following this case besides what was talked about here, so I’m not sure if I’m missing anything? It sounds like the accusation is “his word against hers” at best, which is essentially a meaningless accusation, but then there’s at least a few questionable aspects of the story on top of that which would make one question its validity beyond that. And the response is... let’s start a fishing expedition to see if we could potentially uncover some dirt here? Should we always open an investigation the moment someone squeaks about something that potentially happened decades ago with no corroborating evidence whatsoever? I’m not seeing any logic beyond trying to disguise political expediency as an investigation into genuine wrongdoing.
I mean, there's evidence that she's been claiming this for six years, which is hardly the spurious allegation just as he's nominated that you're implying. That's at least evidence that the allegations are personal, not just a political ploy. I'm fine with investigating any time an allegation comes out and there's good reason to believe the accuser is serious.
I mean, take the famous people out of it for a moment. If a girl goes to the cops and says "that guy raped me," do you not think that should be grounds to go look for evidence for/against her claim? Does she have to do an amateur investigation first to find enough evidence to get them to look into it?
If a cop looks at me and says "I bet that guy has drugs on him" and searches me, that's a fishing expedition. If a guy points at me and tells the cop "I saw drugs in that guy's bag," it's no longer a fishing expedition. ...right? Or are we even on the same page there?
|
On September 19 2018 12:30 LegalLord wrote:
I haven’t been following this case besides what was talked about here, so I’m not sure if I’m missing anything? It sounds like the accusation is “his word against hers” at best, which is essentially a meaningless accusation, but then there’s at least a few questionable aspects of the story on top of that which would make one question its validity beyond that. And the response is... let’s start a fishing expedition to see if we could potentially uncover some dirt here? Should we always open an investigation the moment someone squeaks about something that potentially happened decades ago with no corroborating evidence whatsoever? I’m not seeing any logic beyond trying to disguise political expediency as an investigation into genuine wrongdoing.
It's 90% political expediency to keep another conservative off the court. The other 10% is some mix of supreme court justice idolatry and #believeallwomen bias towards the accuser.
But you already noted that there's a focus on fishing investigations and ignorance of corroborating evidence, so you're probably already aware.
By way of updates- One alleged teenage witness that Christine Ford named said in a statement "I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh..." and goes on to boast of Kavanaugh's integrity and conduct towards women.
- Dianne Feinstein seemed uneasy in her statement, including "This is a woman, who I really believe, has been profoundly impacted by this. Now, I can't say everything is truthful. I don't know.
- Lisa Banks, Christine Ford's lawyer, says "Any talk of a hearing on Monday, frankly, is premature...[Ford] will talk with the committee. She is not prepared to talk with them on Monday.'"
- Grassley's office released a statement reiterating that "The FBI has indicated to the committee and in public statements that it considers the matter closed. The FBI does not make credibility determinations."
- Christine Ford said that Grassley scheduled the public hearing expecting her to testify "at the same table" as Kavanaugh. In same statement, Grassley denied ever saying those were his plans, and reiterated that he had provided the possibility of several different settings and members present, public or private, as well as many dates.
These kind of turns have inspired confidence from the Kavanaugh forces, according to reports. Speculation on cultural fallout if this accusation backfires?
|
On September 19 2018 13:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 12:30 LegalLord wrote:
I haven’t been following this case besides what was talked about here, so I’m not sure if I’m missing anything? It sounds like the accusation is “his word against hers” at best, which is essentially a meaningless accusation, but then there’s at least a few questionable aspects of the story on top of that which would make one question its validity beyond that. And the response is... let’s start a fishing expedition to see if we could potentially uncover some dirt here? Should we always open an investigation the moment someone squeaks about something that potentially happened decades ago with no corroborating evidence whatsoever? I’m not seeing any logic beyond trying to disguise political expediency as an investigation into genuine wrongdoing. It's 90% political expediency to keep another conservative off the court. The other 10% is some mix of supreme court justice idolatry and #believeallwomen bias towards the accuser. But you already noted that there's a focus on fishing investigations and ignorance of corroborating evidence, so you're probably already aware.
By way of updates - One alleged teenage witness that Christine Ford named said in a statement "I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh..." and goes on to boast of Kavanaugh's integrity and conduct towards women.
- Dianne Feinstein seemed uneasy in her statement, including "This is a woman, who I really believe, has been profoundly impacted by this. Now, I can't say everything is truthful. I don't know.
- Lisa Banks, Christine Ford's lawyer, says "Any talk of a hearing on Monday, frankly, is premature...[Ford] will talk with the committee. She is not prepared to talk with them on Monday.'"
- Grassley's office released a statement reiterating that "The FBI has indicated to the committee and in public statements that it considers the matter closed. The FBI does not make credibility determinations."
- Christine Ford said that Grassley scheduled the public hearing expecting her to testify "at the same table" as Kavanaugh. In same statement, Grassley denied ever saying those were his plans, and reiterated that he had provided the possibility of several different settings and members present, public or private, as well as many dates.
These kind of turns have inspired confidence from the Kavanaugh forces, according to reports. Speculation on cultural fallout if this accusation backfires?
What do you mean "cultural fallout"? I guess I'm curious what you mean by "backfires" too?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I suppose in the sense that if people get sick of the idea of using accusations of sexual impropriety for political gain, what will be the result? Sounds to me like the standard life cycle of your average internet lynch mob honestly - emboldened by a couple early successes, leading into accusations of guilty and innocent people alike (often for political gain), until finally people realize it went too far. Don’t think we’re there yet though.
On September 19 2018 13:13 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, there's evidence that she's been claiming this for six years, which is hardly the spurious allegation just as he's nominated that you're implying. That's at least evidence that the allegations are personal, not just a political ploy. I'm fine with investigating any time an allegation comes out and there's good reason to believe the accuser is serious.
I would generally assume a false allegation of sexual assault is personal, for whatever reason. Considering that a large number of false accusations involve something like a relationship gone sour I would assume that is the default reason for a claim like that.
On September 19 2018 13:13 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, take the famous people out of it for a moment. If a girl goes to the cops and says "that guy raped me," do you not think that should be grounds to go look for evidence for/against her claim? Does she have to do an amateur investigation first to find enough evidence to get them to look into it?
They could look for physical evidence and inconsistencies in the story, or they could try talking to the accused. The physical evidence is long since gone if it ever existed, the accuser does not seem consistent in the way they tell their story, and if the accused is smart enough to do the right thing (deny in court, don't talk in private) then there's nothing there. One person repeating the same claim (perhaps inconsistently) more than once is not evidence of anything at all. Definitely sounds like fishing to open an investigation based on just that, especially given that bringing up these claims (on the part of Democrats) has an obvious political motive.
On September 19 2018 13:13 ChristianS wrote:
If a cop looks at me and says "I bet that guy has drugs on him" and searches me, that's a fishing expedition. If a guy points at me and tells the cop "I saw drugs in that guy's bag," it's no longer a fishing expedition. ...right? Or are we even on the same page there?
Good question. I wonder to what extent "unlawful search and seizure" would apply there. I'm betting that if there weren't additional physical evidence (i.e. smell of drugs) that the accused would be entirely in the right to refuse to be searched without probable cause. We do have a lawyer among us, though, who might know in better detail how that would actually play out.
|
Fourth Amendment due process has nothing to do with this being a “fishing expedition.” This isn’t a criminal investigation and never will be due to statute of limitations issues. I said that it is a fishing expedition because there literally is insufficient information for the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the incident. Now that Ford won’t come forward and testify, the RINO senators like Flake are coming to the inevitable conclusion that they should just ignore the allegations and confirm Kavanaugh.
|
Again, the "accusations for political gain" is a bit of a boogeyman considering she's claimed this since long before his nomination. Tbh before I heard she'd claimed this since 2012 (and could prove it) I thought "there's nothing to this, it'd be too easy for someone to make this up to stall the nomination, and even if the accusation is true we'll never be able to distinguish it from politically motivated hack job." But it's pretty unlikely that she started laying the ground work for a false accusation six years ago just in case he ever got nominated.
So if it's a relationship gone sour or something, let's go find that out, huh? We could certainly ask around and find out if these guys dated in high school. What's the downside there?
|
Take all the time you want investigating the claim. In the meantime, let's confirm Kavanaugh. If it turns out that he perjured himself, impeach him.
EDIT: The really sad thing here, is how democrats, the supposed champions of women's rights (Let's all LOL again at their empowerment of the Clintons and ignoring Keith Ellison), are ruthlessly abusing Ford for the sole political purpose of trying to delay Kavanaugh's appointment. No one is going to give a shit about any of this in a few months after Kavanaugh is confirmed. Yet Ford is going to be dealing with the fallout from coming forward with the allegations for years to come. I'd almost feel sorry for her if she didn't intentionally put herself in this position in the first place and then refuse to testify when given the opportunity.
|
BTW, did anyone else see that a Texas senate seat in Texas that is 75% black/Hispanic and had been held by democrats for 140 years just flipped to a Trump-supporting republican?
|
What I heard from Texans was the previous Dem officeholder was such a corrupt felon, that the turnover is more an example of replacing the sleazy scumbag with a law-and-order-type.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 20 2018 00:53 ChristianS wrote:
So if it's a relationship gone sour or something, let's go find that out, huh? We could certainly ask around and find out if these guys dated in high school. What's the downside there?
Why not investigate everything ever based on nothing more than “he said, she said” then?
|
On September 20 2018 03:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2018 00:53 ChristianS wrote:
So if it's a relationship gone sour or something, let's go find that out, huh? We could certainly ask around and find out if these guys dated in high school. What's the downside there? Why not investigate everything ever based on nothing more than “he said, she said” then?
This is the big tell about why all of this political horseshit designed to do nothing other than delay the confirmation process. There's literally nothing to investigate. We don't know where. We don't know when. We have three "whos," two of whom deny anything like this ever happening and one who will not testify. Anyone who doesn't understand that this is a dead end is either an idiot or a political hack. There really is no middle ground.
|
Former CIA director and MSNBC contributor John Brennan called on FBI director Christopher Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to "push back" on any directive from the White House that may have a "negative impact" on the Mueller investigation.
Brennan called on "individuals of conscience" in the administration to remember that they took an oath of office not an oath to Donald Trump. Moments prior Brennan admonished people who are abusing their powers to "protect" Trump.
"I think that they should continue to push, push, push, and if Mr. Tump and the White House does not relent, then they have some decisions to make, and whether or not they are going to the just not follow that direction and be fired or to resign," Brennan said of the trio.
"A number of individuals are trying to protect Mr. Trump and abusing their authorities and their powers, whether it be in Congress or within the executive branch," Brennan said on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports. "And this is something that I am hoping that individuals of conscience are going to stop and prevent because I am concerned that this is just one indication that Mr. Trump is going to increasingly look for steps to take in order to further to try to subvert the Mueller investigation."
"I think that they should continue to push, push, push, and if Mr. Tump and the White House does not relent, then they have some decisions to make, and whether or not they are going to the just not follow that direction and be fired or to resign, but if they really believe this is going to have serious impact, the national security law enforcement, and judicial process, they have an obligation since they took the oath of office to the constitution of the United States and not Mr. Trump to uphold their responsibilities and their agency and the departments' authorities," Brennan said.
Brennan called it critically important that Americans accept the results of the Mueller probe.
"It is critically important for all of the American citizens to learn the results of that investigation, and whether or not it implicates Mr. Trump and others, we have to be ready to accept those findings as apolitical, and not something that is being done for political purposes," he said.
Source.
I hope people appreciate just how extraordinary this is. Brennan (among others) is literally calling for officials to usurp the Constitutional authority of the President. These people are in an absolute panic over what's about to be released.
|
On September 20 2018 03:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2018 00:53 ChristianS wrote:
So if it's a relationship gone sour or something, let's go find that out, huh? We could certainly ask around and find out if these guys dated in high school. What's the downside there? Why not investigate everything ever based on nothing more than “he said, she said” then?
How many spurious accusers do you think there are that can prove they've been saying it privately for 6 years? I really don't think this will turn into the epidemic you seem to be imagining.
|
On September 20 2018 04:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Former CIA director and MSNBC contributor John Brennan called on FBI director Christopher Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to "push back" on any directive from the White House that may have a "negative impact" on the Mueller investigation.
Brennan called on "individuals of conscience" in the administration to remember that they took an oath of office not an oath to Donald Trump. Moments prior Brennan admonished people who are abusing their powers to "protect" Trump.
"I think that they should continue to push, push, push, and if Mr. Tump and the White House does not relent, then they have some decisions to make, and whether or not they are going to the just not follow that direction and be fired or to resign," Brennan said of the trio.
"A number of individuals are trying to protect Mr. Trump and abusing their authorities and their powers, whether it be in Congress or within the executive branch," Brennan said on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports. "And this is something that I am hoping that individuals of conscience are going to stop and prevent because I am concerned that this is just one indication that Mr. Trump is going to increasingly look for steps to take in order to further to try to subvert the Mueller investigation."
"I think that they should continue to push, push, push, and if Mr. Tump and the White House does not relent, then they have some decisions to make, and whether or not they are going to the just not follow that direction and be fired or to resign, but if they really believe this is going to have serious impact, the national security law enforcement, and judicial process, they have an obligation since they took the oath of office to the constitution of the United States and not Mr. Trump to uphold their responsibilities and their agency and the departments' authorities," Brennan said.
Brennan called it critically important that Americans accept the results of the Mueller probe.
"It is critically important for all of the American citizens to learn the results of that investigation, and whether or not it implicates Mr. Trump and others, we have to be ready to accept those findings as apolitical, and not something that is being done for political purposes," he said. Source. I hope people appreciate just how extraordinary this is. Brennan (among others) is literally calling for officials to usurp the Constitutional authority of the President. These people are in an absolute panic over what's about to be released.
I've said for a while a coup is more likely than impeachment.
"It is critically important for all of the American citizens to learn the results of that investigation, and whether or not it implicates Mr. Trump and others, we have to be ready to accept those findings as apolitical, and not something that is being done for political purposes
That part is what I was talking about before with banking on Trump not wanting to destroy the suspension of disbelief in the US political system.
Of course Trump would make an unfavorable Mueller report into a purely political document (it mostly will be), even if that means undermining the entire system and people's faith in it.
Real question is what will Democrats do with a Mueller report that mostly or fully clears Trump?
*I'm letting a little Mueller stuff slide for now, I'll give you a heads up if it's getting to be too much.
|
If you look at what's actually happened during Trump's first two years in office, there basically has been soft coup against him. A huge chunk of the administrative apparatus has been actively sabotaging him in an unprecedented way. Former officials such as Clapper and Brennan have accused Trump of being a traitor and are actively instigating resistance to Trump. Now, we still don't know why they are advocating this level of resistance, but it doesn't change the fact that they are being openly seditious and encouraging further sedition. This alone is why it is so important to release the FISA applications and related materials. The country simply needs to know what's going on before more damage is done to the country. If Trump is a traitor, let's impeach him and be done with it. If not, then we need to start dealing with the real traitors.
Anyway, I don't mean to crap up the thread with Mueller/Russia stuff and am trying to keep it limited to what's actually important as opposed to doing a StealthBlue-type play-by-play of every minor development. But I think that it is pretty clear that momentous things are happening right now given that Trump is declassifying stuff.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 20 2018 04:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2018 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2018 00:53 ChristianS wrote:
So if it's a relationship gone sour or something, let's go find that out, huh? We could certainly ask around and find out if these guys dated in high school. What's the downside there? Why not investigate everything ever based on nothing more than “he said, she said” then? How many spurious accusers do you think there are that can prove they've been saying it privately for 6 years? I really don't think this will turn into the epidemic you seem to be imagining.
How many “he said, she said” investigations could you start purely on the basis of a claim being repeated after, or over the course of, years? A shitton.
|
On September 20 2018 08:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2018 04:59 ChristianS wrote:On September 20 2018 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2018 00:53 ChristianS wrote:
So if it's a relationship gone sour or something, let's go find that out, huh? We could certainly ask around and find out if these guys dated in high school. What's the downside there? Why not investigate everything ever based on nothing more than “he said, she said” then? How many spurious accusers do you think there are that can prove they've been saying it privately for 6 years? I really don't think this will turn into the epidemic you seem to be imagining. How many “he said, she said” investigations could you start purely on the basis of a claim being repeated after, or over the course of, years? A shitton.
The worst part is that it's "he said, she said -- and she doesn't even remember." Like I said, it takes a special kind of person to think that there's any reason to investigate this.
|
On September 20 2018 08:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2018 04:59 ChristianS wrote:On September 20 2018 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2018 00:53 ChristianS wrote:
So if it's a relationship gone sour or something, let's go find that out, huh? We could certainly ask around and find out if these guys dated in high school. What's the downside there? Why not investigate everything ever based on nothing more than “he said, she said” then? How many spurious accusers do you think there are that can prove they've been saying it privately for 6 years? I really don't think this will turn into the epidemic you seem to be imagining. How many “he said, she said” investigations could you start purely on the basis of a claim being repeated after, or over the course of, years? A shitton.
That's insane. How many people do you think are out there right now for any given person in Washington, just laying the groundwork for a spurious assault claim if they get a chance? Are there half a dozen women just waiting for their shot at Mike Lee?
And what exactly do you think they're hoping to gain? If there's an investigation of Kavanaugh, and they find nothing to support the claim (and if it's false, they might even find something to disprove it), surely the confirmation goes on as planned. So what, are we just worried about wasting the FBI's time? Are we concerned about the wasted tax dollars? ...or is there not actually a very big downside to taking a bit of time and resources to determine whether candidates for the highest court in the land are guilty of the sex crimes they're accused of?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 20 2018 09:48 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2018 08:33 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2018 04:59 ChristianS wrote:On September 20 2018 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2018 00:53 ChristianS wrote:
So if it's a relationship gone sour or something, let's go find that out, huh? We could certainly ask around and find out if these guys dated in high school. What's the downside there? Why not investigate everything ever based on nothing more than “he said, she said” then? How many spurious accusers do you think there are that can prove they've been saying it privately for 6 years? I really don't think this will turn into the epidemic you seem to be imagining. How many “he said, she said” investigations could you start purely on the basis of a claim being repeated after, or over the course of, years? A shitton. That's insane. How many people do you think are out there right now for any given person in Washington, just laying the groundwork for a spurious assault claim if they get a chance? Are there half a dozen women just waiting for their shot at Mike Lee? And what exactly do you think they're hoping to gain? If there's an investigation of Kavanaugh, and they find nothing to support the claim (and if it's false, they might even find something to disprove it), surely the confirmation goes on as planned. So what, are we just worried about wasting the FBI's time? Are we concerned about the wasted tax dollars? ...or is there not actually a very big downside to taking a bit of time and resources to determine whether candidates for the highest court in the land are guilty of the sex crimes they're accused of?
I'm sure you could find plenty of analogous situations where "they said it years ago so why would we think they're lying?" if you look. Fuck, let's investigate everything Alex Jones has ever said - who cares that he's an unreliable witness, who cares that there's no corroborating evidence, who cares that it's a waste of breath to even take it seriously, are we concerned about wasting the FBI's time or wasted tax dollars? Some very powerful and important people are implicated in his assertions and he will back them if you ask again, so let's get on that wild goose chase. And if that example seems a little too extreme for you, then dial it to whatever level you choose and you will certainly be able to draw up plenty of baseless bullshit based on nothing more than that someone said something once and was willing to testify, wait never mind, that it was so.
It's a waste of breath and a crock of shit that shouldn't be allowed to gain traction as a political tactic. You show people that baseless claims of sexual misconduct from decades past can be used to immediately spawn a pointless investigation and you're going to see that happen many more times. On the part of the senator who pushed this story, it was a blatant attempt to delay the nomination until the primaries for some form or other of political gain. On the part of the witness, who the fuck knows, but her story sure as hell isn't holding up to scrutiny. But hey, it's politically expedient, so let's just pretend it's credible anyways!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
