|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 15 2018 05:00 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On September 15 2018 02:07 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2018 15:03 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2018 10:13 Introvert wrote:For the purpose of comedy, I sincerely hope the Guardian isn't getting trolled and this is the actual story of the supposed incident. They might be just be embarrassing themselves one last time before this is over. I suppose for context I should add that this is a story from a well-respected news source on the last minute, highly suspicious accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for some sort of misconduct, with #MeToo overtones. A senior Democratic senator has alerted federal investigators to a confidential letter she received regarding Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s conservative nominee for the US supreme court, in an extraordinary move that suggested she had been informed of possible wrongdoing.
Dianne Feinstein, who is the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, said she had received information about Kavanaugh’s nomination from an individual who had strongly requested confidentiality. The letter was likely passed on to the FBI because the bureau is responsible for background checks into judicial nominees.
News of the letter came as Judge Kavanaugh faced fresh scrutiny about his relationship with another judge, who was forced to resign from the bench last year.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court,” Feinstein said in a statement.
“That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.
A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
A spokesman for Feinstein declined to comment. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
While additional details about the letter were scarce, two media outlets have reported that the person who wrote the letter is being represented by an attorney, Debra Katz, who has been described in media reports as Washington’s #MeToo lawyer.
Katz has not responded to a request for comment from the Guardian. BuzzFeed reported that she was seen on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night, shortly after the Intercept first reported the existence of the letter. And just as the cherry on top, the last ~900 words of the article are all about Kavanaugh's relationship to now-disgraced former Judge Kozinski, which is an obvious attempt to try and make this something, while being a recognition that it's really nothing. It's pretty dirty, really, but it IS funny. www.theguardian.comEdit: or, as one theoy I read says, this is purposely ridiculous so that when the "real story" comes out, it enhances it. Interesting thought. The nomination process is going quite well if Feinstein’s reduced to accusing Kavanaugh of locking someone in a room when he was a teenager. I guess the line is that he made a girl feel threatened when he was young, and now he’s making all women feel threatened about abortion law now. The smear by association is nothing new; they tried the same with the papers that passed his desk from some other Bush administration figure that was misbehaving. The New Yorker reports that the allegation is basically attempted rape. He covered her mouth, attempted to force himself on her, and they turned up the music in the room so others wouldn't hear her protests. This woman first provided the letter to Feinstein in July. No doubt Kavanaugh 's supporters will now argue that the rape accuser must be lying because of x, y, and z. I just want to know why Feinstein sat on this. And when this is eventually shown to be credible, people will talk about how rape is super common in rural communities and how women are expected to stop whining about it for the sake of social cohesion. Which is true, of course, but isn't the kind of standard I have for the supreme court. Even if we were to assume rape is somewhat common, I do not want a somewhat common man on the supreme court. Am i misunderstanding you or are you saying that rape is common in rural area and that women shouldn't speak about it for the sake of social cohesion?
Mohdoo is making the argument that sexual assault is common in rural areas. Coming from a rural area, I have to agree with this assessment, as the majority of women I know openly talk about unwanted sexual advances at some point in their lives I wouldn’t’ say it is more common than in suburban or urban areas. In general, unwanted sexual advances are part of growing up as a woman.
When it comes to the resistance to reporting sexual assault for fear of retribution, it might be more prevalent in a rural community with few seats of power and venues to make the report.
|
On September 15 2018 05:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 05:00 Erasme wrote:On September 15 2018 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On September 15 2018 02:07 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2018 15:03 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2018 10:13 Introvert wrote:For the purpose of comedy, I sincerely hope the Guardian isn't getting trolled and this is the actual story of the supposed incident. They might be just be embarrassing themselves one last time before this is over. I suppose for context I should add that this is a story from a well-respected news source on the last minute, highly suspicious accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for some sort of misconduct, with #MeToo overtones. A senior Democratic senator has alerted federal investigators to a confidential letter she received regarding Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s conservative nominee for the US supreme court, in an extraordinary move that suggested she had been informed of possible wrongdoing.
Dianne Feinstein, who is the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, said she had received information about Kavanaugh’s nomination from an individual who had strongly requested confidentiality. The letter was likely passed on to the FBI because the bureau is responsible for background checks into judicial nominees.
News of the letter came as Judge Kavanaugh faced fresh scrutiny about his relationship with another judge, who was forced to resign from the bench last year.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court,” Feinstein said in a statement.
“That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.
A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
A spokesman for Feinstein declined to comment. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
While additional details about the letter were scarce, two media outlets have reported that the person who wrote the letter is being represented by an attorney, Debra Katz, who has been described in media reports as Washington’s #MeToo lawyer.
Katz has not responded to a request for comment from the Guardian. BuzzFeed reported that she was seen on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night, shortly after the Intercept first reported the existence of the letter. And just as the cherry on top, the last ~900 words of the article are all about Kavanaugh's relationship to now-disgraced former Judge Kozinski, which is an obvious attempt to try and make this something, while being a recognition that it's really nothing. It's pretty dirty, really, but it IS funny. www.theguardian.comEdit: or, as one theoy I read says, this is purposely ridiculous so that when the "real story" comes out, it enhances it. Interesting thought. The nomination process is going quite well if Feinstein’s reduced to accusing Kavanaugh of locking someone in a room when he was a teenager. I guess the line is that he made a girl feel threatened when he was young, and now he’s making all women feel threatened about abortion law now. The smear by association is nothing new; they tried the same with the papers that passed his desk from some other Bush administration figure that was misbehaving. The New Yorker reports that the allegation is basically attempted rape. He covered her mouth, attempted to force himself on her, and they turned up the music in the room so others wouldn't hear her protests. This woman first provided the letter to Feinstein in July. No doubt Kavanaugh 's supporters will now argue that the rape accuser must be lying because of x, y, and z. I just want to know why Feinstein sat on this. And when this is eventually shown to be credible, people will talk about how rape is super common in rural communities and how women are expected to stop whining about it for the sake of social cohesion. Which is true, of course, but isn't the kind of standard I have for the supreme court. Even if we were to assume rape is somewhat common, I do not want a somewhat common man on the supreme court. Am i misunderstanding you or are you saying that rape is common in rural area and that women shouldn't speak about it for the sake of social cohesion? Mohdoo is making the argument that sexual assault is common in rural areas. Coming from a rural area, I have to agree with this assessment, as the majority of women I know openly talk about unwanted sexual advances at some point in their lives I wouldn’t’ say it is more common than in suburban or urban areas. In general, unwanted sexual advances are part of growing up as a woman. When it comes to the resistance to reporting sexual assault for fear of retribution, it might be more prevalent in a rural community with few seats of power and venues to make the report.
You need to give more detail on what you mean with "unwanted sexual advances" Because with that formulation, it can be anything from asking for a date to rape.
|
On September 15 2018 05:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 05:28 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:00 Erasme wrote:On September 15 2018 02:12 Mohdoo wrote:On September 15 2018 02:07 Doodsmack wrote:On September 14 2018 15:03 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2018 10:13 Introvert wrote:For the purpose of comedy, I sincerely hope the Guardian isn't getting trolled and this is the actual story of the supposed incident. They might be just be embarrassing themselves one last time before this is over. I suppose for context I should add that this is a story from a well-respected news source on the last minute, highly suspicious accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for some sort of misconduct, with #MeToo overtones. A senior Democratic senator has alerted federal investigators to a confidential letter she received regarding Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s conservative nominee for the US supreme court, in an extraordinary move that suggested she had been informed of possible wrongdoing.
Dianne Feinstein, who is the top Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, said she had received information about Kavanaugh’s nomination from an individual who had strongly requested confidentiality. The letter was likely passed on to the FBI because the bureau is responsible for background checks into judicial nominees.
News of the letter came as Judge Kavanaugh faced fresh scrutiny about his relationship with another judge, who was forced to resign from the bench last year.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court,” Feinstein said in a statement.
“That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.
A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
A spokesman for Feinstein declined to comment. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
While additional details about the letter were scarce, two media outlets have reported that the person who wrote the letter is being represented by an attorney, Debra Katz, who has been described in media reports as Washington’s #MeToo lawyer.
Katz has not responded to a request for comment from the Guardian. BuzzFeed reported that she was seen on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night, shortly after the Intercept first reported the existence of the letter. And just as the cherry on top, the last ~900 words of the article are all about Kavanaugh's relationship to now-disgraced former Judge Kozinski, which is an obvious attempt to try and make this something, while being a recognition that it's really nothing. It's pretty dirty, really, but it IS funny. www.theguardian.comEdit: or, as one theoy I read says, this is purposely ridiculous so that when the "real story" comes out, it enhances it. Interesting thought. The nomination process is going quite well if Feinstein’s reduced to accusing Kavanaugh of locking someone in a room when he was a teenager. I guess the line is that he made a girl feel threatened when he was young, and now he’s making all women feel threatened about abortion law now. The smear by association is nothing new; they tried the same with the papers that passed his desk from some other Bush administration figure that was misbehaving. The New Yorker reports that the allegation is basically attempted rape. He covered her mouth, attempted to force himself on her, and they turned up the music in the room so others wouldn't hear her protests. This woman first provided the letter to Feinstein in July. No doubt Kavanaugh 's supporters will now argue that the rape accuser must be lying because of x, y, and z. I just want to know why Feinstein sat on this. And when this is eventually shown to be credible, people will talk about how rape is super common in rural communities and how women are expected to stop whining about it for the sake of social cohesion. Which is true, of course, but isn't the kind of standard I have for the supreme court. Even if we were to assume rape is somewhat common, I do not want a somewhat common man on the supreme court. Am i misunderstanding you or are you saying that rape is common in rural area and that women shouldn't speak about it for the sake of social cohesion? Mohdoo is making the argument that sexual assault is common in rural areas. Coming from a rural area, I have to agree with this assessment, as the majority of women I know openly talk about unwanted sexual advances at some point in their lives I wouldn’t’ say it is more common than in suburban or urban areas. In general, unwanted sexual advances are part of growing up as a woman. When it comes to the resistance to reporting sexual assault for fear of retribution, it might be more prevalent in a rural community with few seats of power and venues to make the report. You need to give more detail on what you mean with "unwanted sexual advances" Because with that formulation, it can be anything from asking for a date to rape.
I mean sexual assault, as detailed in the first sentence in the paragraph. I just didn't want to use the terms three times in a row.
|
Thanks. In that case, what the fuck. Sexual Assault should not be a part of growing up for anyone.
|
As my wife put it: “Lots of dudes get scary when you tell them ‘no’ and I’m small,” which has always summed it up. And she is an angry Italian American girl. When it comes to sexual assault, modern sociality fails to provide the victim with good routes to seek justice. And because of the social dynamics in modern society, the majority of the victims are women to the point where all women experience it in some way or another. But is also fails men, like Terry Crews for example. Collectively, we are just a failure when it comes to sexual violence and are resistant to getting better.
|
So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to?
Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 15 2018 05:37 Simberto wrote:
Thanks. In that case, what the fuck. Sexual Assault should not be a part of growing up for anyone.
The reason it is particularly prevalent and unpunished in rural areas is the simple fact that people know a greater % of their total community and people in power have more power. Speaking out against the town church's son probably won't go very well. Or the sheriff's son. Or the rapist's dad works with the victim's dad. Shit like that which all goes on to make the idea of making a big deal out of things really unappealing. Rural communities put a strong emphasis on hierarchy and cohesion, discouraging people from rocking the boat. In larger communities, you don't sink the whole ship in the eyes of your community.
Add the fact that redneck philosophy like "boys will be boys" is more prevalent in areas that experience less societal collisions. When a community has the same families, staying the same size, with the same industries, for a long time, traditional behaviors become more cemented and there is more resistance to modernization. The natural mixing that allows for stagnant, toxic traditions and philosophies to eventually be washed away happens less often in rural communities.
|
On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler +
The woman, ie the alleged victim, who wrote her the letter wanted it to be confidential. And she was going to hold it until it leaked to the press. At that point she turned the letter over the FBI.
She didn’t bring the letter to the Hatch and the others because she doesn’t trust them. That much should be evident to you. Again, they are railroading this confirmation and didn’t enter the same bipartisan agreements they entered with the Democrats in the past. There is no reason to trust this process or the Republicans involved, especially with something a sexual assault victim who wished to remain anonymous.
|
According to a 2014 study by the eu 5% of women were raped at least once counting from age 15 onward and 6%have survived at least one attempt by a rapist.
That's 11% of women according to the study.
|
On September 15 2018 05:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + The woman, ie the alleged victim, who wrote her the letter wanted it to be confidential. And she was going to hold it until it leaked to the press. At that point she turned the letter over the FBI. She didn’t bring the letter to the Hatch and the others because she doesn’t trust them. That much should be evident to you. Again, they are railroading this confirmation and didn’t enter the same bipartisan agreements they entered with the Democrats in the past. There is no reason to trust this process or the Republicans involved, especially with something a sexual assault victim who wished to remain anonymous.
She gave to a House rep, and gave it to DiFi, months ago. Then, Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI.
And your theory doesnt make sense even if the facts were right. She's worried about her privacy so she anonymously gsve the FBI a letter alleging attempted rape , but didnt trust them with her name?
edit: "and" not "who"
|
|
|
On September 15 2018 05:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + If this was not the Oldest serving Republican senator saying this is would be more news worthy. Not saying that he is necessarily wrong. But obviously one of the people instrumental in nominating the guy is going to think that he should go through. It would be super shocking if he didn't. This is very Meh.
He lays out why this reeks. Obviously if Kavanaugh did this he should be no where near a bench, but the problem is so far we have absolutely zero evidence for it.
Also, are other Senate dems on board with this? I know users in this thread follow their Twitter feeds closely, last week showed us that. Or are they just letting this dangle?
|
On September 15 2018 05:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 05:55 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + The woman, ie the alleged victim, who wrote her the letter wanted it to be confidential. And she was going to hold it until it leaked to the press. At that point she turned the letter over the FBI. She didn’t bring the letter to the Hatch and the others because she doesn’t trust them. That much should be evident to you. Again, they are railroading this confirmation and didn’t enter the same bipartisan agreements they entered with the Democrats in the past. There is no reason to trust this process or the Republicans involved, especially with something a sexual assault victim who wished to remain anonymous. She gave to a House rep, who gave it to DiFi, months ago. Then, Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI. And your theory doesnt make sense even if the facts were right. She's worried about her privacy so she anonymously gsve them a letter alleging attempted rape , but didnt trust them with her name?
I have not heard about that House rep or who DiFI is, so I cannot comment. The person wish to remain anonymous and she respected that person’s wishes and didn't use her name. I’m sure the FBI can figure out what they need to know.
And I don’t know why you are complaining? The vote is next Thursday to move it to the full Senate. He is going to get confirmed. You are going to win. And that first part isn’t true, I do know why you are complaining, because you want to win but don’t want any of the political ramifications of how this confirmation process was conducted. Be happy, it is smother than Merrick Garland hearings and way faster.
On September 15 2018 06:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 05:58 JimmiC wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + If this was not the Oldest serving Republican senator saying this is would be more news worthy. Not saying that he is necessarily wrong. But obviously one of the people instrumental in nominating the guy is going to think that he should go through. It would be super shocking if he didn't. This is very Meh. He lays out why this reeks. Obviously if Kavanaugh did this he should be no where near a bench, but the problem is so far we have absolutely zero evidence for it.
If it is obvious, why not take the time to let the investigation play out? Is there a reason why this confirmation needs to be pushed through this month?
|
On September 15 2018 06:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 05:58 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:55 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + The woman, ie the alleged victim, who wrote her the letter wanted it to be confidential. And she was going to hold it until it leaked to the press. At that point she turned the letter over the FBI. She didn’t bring the letter to the Hatch and the others because she doesn’t trust them. That much should be evident to you. Again, they are railroading this confirmation and didn’t enter the same bipartisan agreements they entered with the Democrats in the past. There is no reason to trust this process or the Republicans involved, especially with something a sexual assault victim who wished to remain anonymous. She gave to a House rep, who gave it to DiFi, months ago. Then, Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI. And your theory doesnt make sense even if the facts were right. She's worried about her privacy so she anonymously gsve them a letter alleging attempted rape , but didnt trust them with her name? I have not heard about that House rep or who DiFI is, so I cannot comment. The person wish to remain anonymous and she respected that person’s wishes and didn't use her name. I’m sure the FBI can figure out what they need to know. And I don’t know why you are complaining? The vote is next Thursday to move it to the full Senate. He is going to get confirmed. You are going to win. And that first part isn’t true, I do know why you are complaining, because you want to win but don’t want any of the political ramifications of how this confirmation process was conducted. Be happy, it is smother than Merrick Garland hearings and way faster. Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 06:02 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 JimmiC wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + If this was not the Oldest serving Republican senator saying this is would be more news worthy. Not saying that he is necessarily wrong. But obviously one of the people instrumental in nominating the guy is going to think that he should go through. It would be super shocking if he didn't. This is very Meh. He lays out why this reeks. Obviously if Kavanaugh did this he should be no where near a bench, but the problem is so far we have absolutely zero evidence for it. If it is obvious, why not take the time to let the investigation play out? Is there a reason why this confirmation needs to be pushed through this month?
I'm not sure if you are being snarky or are admitting to commenting on a story without following it. And I'm not sure why Garland gets a name drop, these two situations aren't the same, despite the multiple contortions people go though to make it so.
As for why not wait: because we've been going this process all summer, but now, with less than a week before the vote, they want to bring up a new issue, make serious accusations, and then refuse to back them up? Hmm, why not indeed? At this rate, with no one willing to speak on the record anyway, why should it be delayed? What more is to be learned?
and in case you didn't know, DiFi is short for Dianne Feinstein. Easier than typing that. Even though, yes, her last name starts with "Fei" not "Fie".
Edit: screw auto correct
|
On September 15 2018 06:17 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 06:05 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:55 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + The woman, ie the alleged victim, who wrote her the letter wanted it to be confidential. And she was going to hold it until it leaked to the press. At that point she turned the letter over the FBI. She didn’t bring the letter to the Hatch and the others because she doesn’t trust them. That much should be evident to you. Again, they are railroading this confirmation and didn’t enter the same bipartisan agreements they entered with the Democrats in the past. There is no reason to trust this process or the Republicans involved, especially with something a sexual assault victim who wished to remain anonymous. She gave to a House rep, who gave it to DiFi, months ago. Then, Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI. And your theory doesnt make sense even if the facts were right. She's worried about her privacy so she anonymously gsve them a letter alleging attempted rape , but didnt trust them with her name? I have not heard about that House rep or who DiFI is, so I cannot comment. The person wish to remain anonymous and she respected that person’s wishes and didn't use her name. I’m sure the FBI can figure out what they need to know. And I don’t know why you are complaining? The vote is next Thursday to move it to the full Senate. He is going to get confirmed. You are going to win. And that first part isn’t true, I do know why you are complaining, because you want to win but don’t want any of the political ramifications of how this confirmation process was conducted. Be happy, it is smother than Merrick Garland hearings and way faster. On September 15 2018 06:02 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 JimmiC wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + If this was not the Oldest serving Republican senator saying this is would be more news worthy. Not saying that he is necessarily wrong. But obviously one of the people instrumental in nominating the guy is going to think that he should go through. It would be super shocking if he didn't. This is very Meh. He lays out why this reeks. Obviously if Kavanaugh did this he should be no where near a bench, but the problem is so far we have absolutely zero evidence for it. If it is obvious, why not take the time to let the investigation play out? Is there a reason why this confirmation needs to be pushed through this month? I'm not sure if you are being snarky or are admitting to commenting on a story without following it. And I'm not sure why Garland gets a name drop, these two situations aren't the same, despite the multiple contortions people go though to make it so. As for why not wait: because we've been going this process all summer, but now, with less than a week before the vote, they want to bring up a new issue, make serious accusations, and then refuse to back them up? Hmm, why not indeed? At this rate, with no one willing to speak on the record anyway, why should it be delayed? What more is to be learned? and in case you didn't know, DiFi is short for Dianne Feinstein. Easier than typing that. Even though, yes, her last name starts with "Fei" not "Fie". Edit: screw auto correct
Which house rep did she give the letter to?
And we have not been working on this all summer, you mean from July 9th forward, right? So the month of August congress wasn't in session and no agreement on documents production or release during that time. So for like slightly more than 60 days total. The seat isn't going any place, so why rush it if it turns out to take more time than the average confirmation because Kavanaugh wrote a billion emails?
And the reason why it should be delayed is so the FBI can confirm there was never a criminal investigation or charges filed by the victim. If that happened and Kavanaugh didn't tell them about it when he applied for a government job, he committed a crime.
But, I know why it is being rushed. The elections and Kavanaugh is a stinker with negative approval ratings that conservative billionaires want on the bench.
Edit:
Never mind, the GOP knew about the allegations and had a letter signed by 65 women that attended the school just sitting around. Because that isn’t totally shady and like they are withholding this information from the public. But they object to the idea that they knew, the FBI has this letter signed by 65 women that Brett is an honorable man. Totally normal thing to have decades later
Like what the fuck?
|
On September 15 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 06:17 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 06:05 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:55 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + The woman, ie the alleged victim, who wrote her the letter wanted it to be confidential. And she was going to hold it until it leaked to the press. At that point she turned the letter over the FBI. She didn’t bring the letter to the Hatch and the others because she doesn’t trust them. That much should be evident to you. Again, they are railroading this confirmation and didn’t enter the same bipartisan agreements they entered with the Democrats in the past. There is no reason to trust this process or the Republicans involved, especially with something a sexual assault victim who wished to remain anonymous. She gave to a House rep, who gave it to DiFi, months ago. Then, Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI. And your theory doesnt make sense even if the facts were right. She's worried about her privacy so she anonymously gsve them a letter alleging attempted rape , but didnt trust them with her name? I have not heard about that House rep or who DiFI is, so I cannot comment. The person wish to remain anonymous and she respected that person’s wishes and didn't use her name. I’m sure the FBI can figure out what they need to know. And I don’t know why you are complaining? The vote is next Thursday to move it to the full Senate. He is going to get confirmed. You are going to win. And that first part isn’t true, I do know why you are complaining, because you want to win but don’t want any of the political ramifications of how this confirmation process was conducted. Be happy, it is smother than Merrick Garland hearings and way faster. On September 15 2018 06:02 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 JimmiC wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + If this was not the Oldest serving Republican senator saying this is would be more news worthy. Not saying that he is necessarily wrong. But obviously one of the people instrumental in nominating the guy is going to think that he should go through. It would be super shocking if he didn't. This is very Meh. He lays out why this reeks. Obviously if Kavanaugh did this he should be no where near a bench, but the problem is so far we have absolutely zero evidence for it. If it is obvious, why not take the time to let the investigation play out? Is there a reason why this confirmation needs to be pushed through this month? I'm not sure if you are being snarky or are admitting to commenting on a story without following it. And I'm not sure why Garland gets a name drop, these two situations aren't the same, despite the multiple contortions people go though to make it so. As for why not wait: because we've been going this process all summer, but now, with less than a week before the vote, they want to bring up a new issue, make serious accusations, and then refuse to back them up? Hmm, why not indeed? At this rate, with no one willing to speak on the record anyway, why should it be delayed? What more is to be learned? and in case you didn't know, DiFi is short for Dianne Feinstein. Easier than typing that. Even though, yes, her last name starts with "Fei" not "Fie". Edit: screw auto correct Which house rep did she give the letter to? And we have not been working on this all summer, you mean from July 9th forward, right? So the month of August congress wasn't in session and no agreement on documents production or release during that time. So for like slightly more than 60 days total. The seat isn't going any place, so why rush it if it turns out to take more time than the average confirmation because Kavanaugh wrote a billion emails? And the reason why it should be delayed is so the FBI can confirm there was never a criminal investigation or charges filed by the victim. If that happened and Kavanaugh didn't tell them about it when he applied for a government job, he committed a crime. But, I know why it is being rushed. The elections and Kavanaugh is a stinker with negative approval ratings that conservative billionaires want on the bench.
The Farrow piece Doodsmack referenced the congresswoman, who's been known since this started. Anna Eshoo.
She had the letter for months, did nothing. Feinstein didnt even attend the closed door sessions with Kavanaugh, where such issues could be raised.
The FBI can't investigate because Fienstien gave them a letter with no name. They've already done checks on Kavanaugh, 6, if Hatch I'd correct.
And you are asking the wrong question. Not "why not wait?" The better is "Why wait at all?" There is so little info, this appears to be just an attempt to delay it as long as possible. Of given half the chance, this will stretch on for months. There is not an affirmative case to be made for waiting, unless some evidence or witnesses appear. What will they do, stare at the ceiling?
off for now, bbl if needed.
|
On September 15 2018 06:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 06:17 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 06:05 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:55 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + The woman, ie the alleged victim, who wrote her the letter wanted it to be confidential. And she was going to hold it until it leaked to the press. At that point she turned the letter over the FBI. She didn’t bring the letter to the Hatch and the others because she doesn’t trust them. That much should be evident to you. Again, they are railroading this confirmation and didn’t enter the same bipartisan agreements they entered with the Democrats in the past. There is no reason to trust this process or the Republicans involved, especially with something a sexual assault victim who wished to remain anonymous. She gave to a House rep, who gave it to DiFi, months ago. Then, Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI. And your theory doesnt make sense even if the facts were right. She's worried about her privacy so she anonymously gsve them a letter alleging attempted rape , but didnt trust them with her name? I have not heard about that House rep or who DiFI is, so I cannot comment. The person wish to remain anonymous and she respected that person’s wishes and didn't use her name. I’m sure the FBI can figure out what they need to know. And I don’t know why you are complaining? The vote is next Thursday to move it to the full Senate. He is going to get confirmed. You are going to win. And that first part isn’t true, I do know why you are complaining, because you want to win but don’t want any of the political ramifications of how this confirmation process was conducted. Be happy, it is smother than Merrick Garland hearings and way faster. On September 15 2018 06:02 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 JimmiC wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + If this was not the Oldest serving Republican senator saying this is would be more news worthy. Not saying that he is necessarily wrong. But obviously one of the people instrumental in nominating the guy is going to think that he should go through. It would be super shocking if he didn't. This is very Meh. He lays out why this reeks. Obviously if Kavanaugh did this he should be no where near a bench, but the problem is so far we have absolutely zero evidence for it. If it is obvious, why not take the time to let the investigation play out? Is there a reason why this confirmation needs to be pushed through this month? I'm not sure if you are being snarky or are admitting to commenting on a story without following it. And I'm not sure why Garland gets a name drop, these two situations aren't the same, despite the multiple contortions people go though to make it so. As for why not wait: because we've been going this process all summer, but now, with less than a week before the vote, they want to bring up a new issue, make serious accusations, and then refuse to back them up? Hmm, why not indeed? At this rate, with no one willing to speak on the record anyway, why should it be delayed? What more is to be learned? and in case you didn't know, DiFi is short for Dianne Feinstein. Easier than typing that. Even though, yes, her last name starts with "Fei" not "Fie". Edit: screw auto correct Which house rep did she give the letter to? And we have not been working on this all summer, you mean from July 9th forward, right? So the month of August congress wasn't in session and no agreement on documents production or release during that time. So for like slightly more than 60 days total. The seat isn't going any place, so why rush it if it turns out to take more time than the average confirmation because Kavanaugh wrote a billion emails? And the reason why it should be delayed is so the FBI can confirm there was never a criminal investigation or charges filed by the victim. If that happened and Kavanaugh didn't tell them about it when he applied for a government job, he committed a crime. But, I know why it is being rushed. The elections and Kavanaugh is a stinker with negative approval ratings that conservative billionaires want on the bench. The Farrow piece Doodsmack referenced the congresswoman, who's been known since this started. Anna Eshoo. She had the letter for months, did nothing. Feinstein didnt even attend the closed door sessions with Kavanaugh, where such issues could be raised. The FBI can't investigate because Fienstien gave them a letter with no name. They've already done checks on Kavanaugh, 6, if Hatch I'd correct. And you are asking the wrong question. Not "why not wait?" The better is "Why wait at all?" There is so little info, this appears to be just an attempt to delay it as long as possible. Of given half the chance, this will stretch on for months. There is not an affirmative case to be made for waiting, unless some evidence or witnesses appear. What will they do, stare at the ceiling? off for now, bbl if needed.
None of this matters, it appears the GOP or FBI or someone knew about this the entire time and never talked about it, but took the time to collect 65 signatures from Brett's former classmates. But Fienstien's letter caught them all by surprise, even though they have access to that FBI file.
|
There's no reason to assume the accuser is lying, that's the lesson of #metoo. I am not sure why Feinstein didn't bring this up back in July - that's when the accuser brought it up. But you would probably need more than one accuser to have a case against the guy at this point, or some corroborating evidence. That said, it's not good to assume that any given rape accuser is more than likely lying.
|
On September 15 2018 06:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 06:17 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 06:05 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:55 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + The woman, ie the alleged victim, who wrote her the letter wanted it to be confidential. And she was going to hold it until it leaked to the press. At that point she turned the letter over the FBI. She didn’t bring the letter to the Hatch and the others because she doesn’t trust them. That much should be evident to you. Again, they are railroading this confirmation and didn’t enter the same bipartisan agreements they entered with the Democrats in the past. There is no reason to trust this process or the Republicans involved, especially with something a sexual assault victim who wished to remain anonymous. She gave to a House rep, who gave it to DiFi, months ago. Then, Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI. And your theory doesnt make sense even if the facts were right. She's worried about her privacy so she anonymously gsve them a letter alleging attempted rape , but didnt trust them with her name? I have not heard about that House rep or who DiFI is, so I cannot comment. The person wish to remain anonymous and she respected that person’s wishes and didn't use her name. I’m sure the FBI can figure out what they need to know. And I don’t know why you are complaining? The vote is next Thursday to move it to the full Senate. He is going to get confirmed. You are going to win. And that first part isn’t true, I do know why you are complaining, because you want to win but don’t want any of the political ramifications of how this confirmation process was conducted. Be happy, it is smother than Merrick Garland hearings and way faster. On September 15 2018 06:02 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2018 05:58 JimmiC wrote:On September 15 2018 05:48 Introvert wrote:So Fienstien didnt even go the closed session where they could have discussed the Kavanaugh accuser's letter, and the letter she gave to the FBI had the woman's name redacted, according to CNN. So... it couldn't be followed up on at all? And she sat on it for months? And the woman refused to talk to Ronan Farrow, the one metoo reporter everyone wants to talk to? Orrin Hatch on the committee gets it right: + Show Spoiler + If this was not the Oldest serving Republican senator saying this is would be more news worthy. Not saying that he is necessarily wrong. But obviously one of the people instrumental in nominating the guy is going to think that he should go through. It would be super shocking if he didn't. This is very Meh. He lays out why this reeks. Obviously if Kavanaugh did this he should be no where near a bench, but the problem is so far we have absolutely zero evidence for it. If it is obvious, why not take the time to let the investigation play out? Is there a reason why this confirmation needs to be pushed through this month? I'm not sure if you are being snarky or are admitting to commenting on a story without following it. And I'm not sure why Garland gets a name drop, these two situations aren't the same, despite the multiple contortions people go though to make it so. As for why not wait: because we've been going this process all summer, but now, with less than a week before the vote, they want to bring up a new issue, make serious accusations, and then refuse to back them up? Hmm, why not indeed? At this rate, with no one willing to speak on the record anyway, why should it be delayed? What more is to be learned? and in case you didn't know, DiFi is short for Dianne Feinstein. Easier than typing that. Even though, yes, her last name starts with "Fei" not "Fie". Edit: screw auto correct Which house rep did she give the letter to? And we have not been working on this all summer, you mean from July 9th forward, right? So the month of August congress wasn't in session and no agreement on documents production or release during that time. So for like slightly more than 60 days total. The seat isn't going any place, so why rush it if it turns out to take more time than the average confirmation because Kavanaugh wrote a billion emails? And the reason why it should be delayed is so the FBI can confirm there was never a criminal investigation or charges filed by the victim. If that happened and Kavanaugh didn't tell them about it when he applied for a government job, he committed a crime. But, I know why it is being rushed. The elections and Kavanaugh is a stinker with negative approval ratings that conservative billionaires want on the bench. The Farrow piece Doodsmack referenced the congresswoman, who's been known since this started. Anna Eshoo. She had the letter for months, did nothing. Feinstein didnt even attend the closed door sessions with Kavanaugh, where such issues could be raised. The FBI can't investigate because Fienstien gave them a letter with no name. They've already done checks on Kavanaugh, 6, if Hatch I'd correct. And you are asking the wrong question. Not "why not wait?" The better is "Why wait at all?" There is so little info, this appears to be just an attempt to delay it as long as possible. Of given half the chance, this will stretch on for months. There is not an affirmative case to be made for waiting, unless some evidence or witnesses appear. What will they do, stare at the ceiling? off for now, bbl if needed. Why wait?
Because your appointing someone for live to the most important judicial position?
This is not shit that you can fudge and sort out later. You get it right or you don't do it, or atleast that's how it used to work before Republicans went all 'victory at any price, party over country'.
|
Imagine if Obama had appointed someone to the supreme court who was found committing perjury multiple times, and was accused of rape, republicans would've lost their mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
