|
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 |
There was a piece on Belgium tv tonight about the trade war between the usa and china,they had a few interesting perspectives.
They said the trade war might be more then simply trump keeping his promises to the people who voted for him.
They see it as a potential strategic tool. The theory goes as follows:China is making lots of money with its exports,the hope was that china would transform its economy to a more consumption based economy which would lower their exports and thereby create a more balanced trade with the usa. But china is not doing this,at least not fast enough.
Instead they keep exporting and the surplus high,the money they make with that they use to buy usa bonds and more importantly they use the money to expand their influence. Buying ports and airports in Africa and other Asian countrys,building infrastructure and investing otherwise in foreign countries. With economic power comes political and eventually also military power and that is why this economic expansion outside china itself,made possible by the trade surplus with the usa!,is seen as a long term strategic thread to the usa by some people.
It is an interesting perspective,you might argue that china will take over eventually anyway but it surely can be delayed or speed up by American policy. This would make the trade war more then just trumps hobby,it already did seem unlikely to me that trump could do the trade war if "everyone left and right" objected to it,it must have quiet a bit of support for reasons which might go beyond the deficit itself.
They also discussed some possible outcomes,the conclusion was that there is no good outcome. The sanctions will eventually (and are already to some extend) severely damage the Chinese economy,but on the other hand china can not really give in to trumps demands because that would also severely damage Chinese economy. China in other words has no real options. By not giving china real options in the first place,the trade war could be seen as a sort of "cold war" with the aim to slow down the expansion of china,s influence in the pacific asia and Africa.
|
On September 26 2018 09:39 micronesia wrote:Let's break this down. Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 09:31 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 26 2018 08:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Strange that they scheduled the vote for so soon after. Its not like they are fooling anybody into thinking they care whether the allegations are true. Might as well have some spine and not hold the hearing in that case. Neither party cares. If democrats cared, they would have brought it 6 weeks ago before the infinite written and presencial hearings with him, instead of the last moment possible. How many democrats knew about the accusations 6 weeks ago? There are quite a lot of democrats who did not know then and do know know and care. There are also non-democrats who care. Who is they? You seem to be assuming there is some coordinated effort on the part of the Democrats and while, there may be some level of coordination, I doubt it is anywhere near as much as you are implying. The concern isn't that the Republican leadership plans to hold the vote at some point after the hearing, it's that they have already announced their intention to hold the vote one day after the hearing. If the vote can be scheduled for three days from now, it could also be entered on to the schedule immediately after the hearing (presuming the hearing turns up nothing) for three days later (such as Monday or Tuesday). It only has to be done before the midterms if you assume that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, without complete information on whether he should be or not. I'm also not convinced it has to be before the midterms. Show nested quote +Also, honestly, if the worse this guy did was what that woman alleges 35 YEARS AGO AS A MINOR DRUNK, he is a saint compared to pretty much every senator in there. I know this has already been discussed in this thread, but sexual assault, even 35 years ago, should be disqualifying for SCOTUS. Maybe not for all government jobs, but certainly that one. I also have no idea what you mean by 'as a minor drunk.' Also, if most/all of the Senators really are as dirty as you claim, then it's all the more reason why we need an untainted SCOTUS to keep them in check, not more of the same.
Sorry for ignoring your other points, will adress later.
So Bill Clinton should have resigned?
Allow me to remind you that Bret Kavanaugh at the moment IS AN UNTAINTED SCOTUS candidate vetted 6 times by the FBI.
Do you believe in due process at all? You can't destroy a mans life with an unverified acussation, specially one that provides no exact place, time and which all alleged witnesess have denied happened.
|
On September 26 2018 09:31 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 08:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Strange that they scheduled the vote for so soon after. Its not like they are fooling anybody into thinking they care whether the allegations are true. Might as well have some spine and not hold the hearing in that case. Neither party cares. If democrats cared, they would have brought it 6 weeks ago before the infinite written and presencial hearings with him, instead of the last moment possible. All they care is about stalling and it's pretty fucking transparent. Republicans have no other option than hear and hold the vote, it has to be done before the midterms for more than obvious reasons. Also, honestly, if the worse this guy did was what that woman alleges 35 YEARS AGO AS A MINOR DRUNK, he is a saint compared to pretty much every senator in there. I find it hard to believe that "virgin Bret" was assaulting woman many years before his first time, unless I can see some sort of actual evidence.
Thanks for confirming explicitly that you don't care whether the allegations are true. And no, not every high school boy pushes a girl onto the bed while she's walking to a bathroom, turns the music up in the room and covers her mouth with her hand. To suggest otherwise is grotesque. You really should go with "if the allegations are true it's terrible, but he's innocent until proven guilty."
|
United States24581 Posts
On September 26 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 09:39 micronesia wrote:Let's break this down. On September 26 2018 09:31 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 26 2018 08:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Strange that they scheduled the vote for so soon after. Its not like they are fooling anybody into thinking they care whether the allegations are true. Might as well have some spine and not hold the hearing in that case. Neither party cares. If democrats cared, they would have brought it 6 weeks ago before the infinite written and presencial hearings with him, instead of the last moment possible. How many democrats knew about the accusations 6 weeks ago? There are quite a lot of democrats who did not know then and do know know and care. There are also non-democrats who care. All they care is about stalling and it's pretty fucking transparent. Who is they? You seem to be assuming there is some coordinated effort on the part of the Democrats and while, there may be some level of coordination, I doubt it is anywhere near as much as you are implying. Republicans have no other option than hear and hold the vote The concern isn't that the Republican leadership plans to hold the vote at some point after the hearing, it's that they have already announced their intention to hold the vote one day after the hearing. If the vote can be scheduled for three days from now, it could also be entered on to the schedule immediately after the hearing (presuming the hearing turns up nothing) for three days later (such as Monday or Tuesday). it has to be done before the midterms for more than obvious reasons. It only has to be done before the midterms if you assume that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, without complete information on whether he should be or not. I'm also not convinced it has to be before the midterms. Also, honestly, if the worse this guy did was what that woman alleges 35 YEARS AGO AS A MINOR DRUNK, he is a saint compared to pretty much every senator in there. I know this has already been discussed in this thread, but sexual assault, even 35 years ago, should be disqualifying for SCOTUS. Maybe not for all government jobs, but certainly that one. I also have no idea what you mean by 'as a minor drunk.' Also, if most/all of the Senators really are as dirty as you claim, then it's all the more reason why we need an untainted SCOTUS to keep them in check, not more of the same. Sorry for ignoring your other points, will adress later. So Bill Clinton should have resigned? Huh, what does Bill Clinton have to do with this?
Allow me to remind you that Bret Kavanaugh at the moment IS AN UNTAINTED SCOTUS candidate vetted 6 times by the FBI.
Do you believe in due process at all? Yes, I would be very upset if he did not receive due process. Note, however, that due process does not include the right to have your supreme court nomination rushed through the Senate while people are accusing you of committing serious crimes that may need to be investigated.
You can't destroy a mans life with an unverified acussation, specially one that provides no exact place, time and which all alleged witnesess have denied happened.
We aren't talking about destroying a man's life. We are talking about a supreme court nomination. Delaying confirmation is not destroying his life. If you want to make the argument that the accusers should be punished for what they are doing, then you can do that, premature as it may be, but it really won't affect anything with regards to the nomination.
|
I alway love how they invoke Bill Clinton like some talismans to ward of claims of sexual misconduct. 3 decades later, still going strong.
|
On September 26 2018 10:14 Plansix wrote:
I alway love how they invoke Bill Clinton like some talismans to ward of claims of sexual misconduct. 3 decades later, still going strong.
I imagine they feel like some bad guy in Yu-Gi-Oh who just played some insanely strong card. And then they imagine me losing my mind in complete awe of how brilliant they are and how my argument has been shattered.
|
Looks like Republicans chose a prosecutor who served under Sheriff Joe for 25 years to question Ford on Thursday. I guess she was the only one willing.
|
This does appear to be a pretty blatant attempt by the Democrats to stall the nomination. It's the type of dirty politicking that the Republicans have been blatantly doing for over a decade now and I hate them for it. To see the democrats sink almost as low as Republicans is pretty disappointing. However, at this point, if they have to fight fire with fire, then so be it. Playing fair and getting destroyed by cheaters has its limits.
On Clinton, if my memory serves me, he was already president and in his second term when the general public was made aware of all of the allegations. He was impeached, but not removed by the senate for it. He had no ability to run for a 3rd term for other reasons, but was cast aside by the democrats during Gore's run despite having overseen one of the strongest expansions of the US economy ever. He was pretty much cast aside by the democrat party and is mostly only relevant due to Hillary. Hillary is not Bill. She has zero accusations of sexual assault against her. Her biggest crime in all of it was to stand by her husband and not believe the accusers. If Kavanaugh's wife ever runs for office, I won't hold it too much against her that she stood by her husband when he was accused of assault.
Kavanaugh has tried to make himself out to be a perfect little angel. He claims to be a virgin through high school and other stuff. Yet, we know that's bullshit. He was known to get blackout drunk during high school and be a wild partier frat boy in college. He might not remember the sexual assault due to drunkenness. He may think he's telling the truth about having never sexually assaulted a woman. That doesn't make his judgment any better and he's clearly lying about the image he's trying to project now. His lack of character should be disqualifying for a lifetime position. At the very least, we should be very careful about vetting his background now that new allegations have come up and not ram it through despite the blatant attempt by Democrats to stall his nomination.
Honestly, his career in the Bush administration should disqualify him. He's a partisan hack, but when has that ever stopped Republicans.
|
It’s hard to blame the democrats for having a good plan by letting the Republicans hang themselves. The democrats can’t stall the vote. The Republicans don’t have the votes to confirm right now.
|
On September 26 2018 10:14 Plansix wrote:
I alway love how they invoke Bill Clinton like some talismans to ward of claims of sexual misconduct. 3 decades later, still going strong.
Well, ole Kavanaugh did play a big role in the Clinton sex scandal investigation. He insisted on very high standards in that case, we really ought to hold him to the very same standards he espoused back then.
Also, note with Bill it was consensual stuff, though there was obviously a huge power imbalance between the President and a much younger woman intern. Kavanaugh is being accused of rape.
|
On September 26 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 09:39 micronesia wrote:Let's break this down. On September 26 2018 09:31 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 26 2018 08:58 Doodsmack wrote:
Strange that they scheduled the vote for so soon after. Its not like they are fooling anybody into thinking they care whether the allegations are true. Might as well have some spine and not hold the hearing in that case. Neither party cares. If democrats cared, they would have brought it 6 weeks ago before the infinite written and presencial hearings with him, instead of the last moment possible. How many democrats knew about the accusations 6 weeks ago? There are quite a lot of democrats who did not know then and do know know and care. There are also non-democrats who care. All they care is about stalling and it's pretty fucking transparent. Who is they? You seem to be assuming there is some coordinated effort on the part of the Democrats and while, there may be some level of coordination, I doubt it is anywhere near as much as you are implying. Republicans have no other option than hear and hold the vote The concern isn't that the Republican leadership plans to hold the vote at some point after the hearing, it's that they have already announced their intention to hold the vote one day after the hearing. If the vote can be scheduled for three days from now, it could also be entered on to the schedule immediately after the hearing (presuming the hearing turns up nothing) for three days later (such as Monday or Tuesday). it has to be done before the midterms for more than obvious reasons. It only has to be done before the midterms if you assume that Kavanaugh should be confirmed, without complete information on whether he should be or not. I'm also not convinced it has to be before the midterms. Also, honestly, if the worse this guy did was what that woman alleges 35 YEARS AGO AS A MINOR DRUNK, he is a saint compared to pretty much every senator in there. I know this has already been discussed in this thread, but sexual assault, even 35 years ago, should be disqualifying for SCOTUS. Maybe not for all government jobs, but certainly that one. I also have no idea what you mean by 'as a minor drunk.' Also, if most/all of the Senators really are as dirty as you claim, then it's all the more reason why we need an untainted SCOTUS to keep them in check, not more of the same. Sorry for ignoring your other points, will adress later. So Bill Clinton should have resigned? Allow me to remind you that Bret Kavanaugh at the moment IS AN UNTAINTED SCOTUS candidate vetted 6 times by the FBI. Do you believe in due process at all? You can't destroy a mans life with an unverified acussation, specially one that provides no exact place, time and which all alleged witnesess have denied happened.
Why do you think Kavanaugh is way more drama than Gorsuch? Due process is exactly what Murkowski is after right now. An FBI investigation into Anita Hill took 3 days. Midterms happen in a lot more than 3 days.
|
I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but McConnell's staff has been in the archives. Here is former Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden making the same point I did here days ago. An FBI report is a useless stalling tactic, and the Republicans on the Committee are right in trying to keep transparent stalling tactics to a minimum. The fact that this all happened after Feinstein had the letter for months was reason enough to push through this crapshow. An FBI will tell us nothing, and the fact that now Ramirez seems to want one as a condition for talking to the Committee shows what a game this is. They could find out nothing we don't know.
Also, someone else pointed out that Anita Hill, before the FBI "investigation," was already cooperating with the Committee, providing an affidavit, speaking to committee staff, etc. Things neither Ford nor Ramirez are doing.
As an aisde, I'm going to be amused by whatever Avenatti puts out (or how he excuses not doing it). Anyone willing to pick Avenatti, political operative, as their lawyer in this matter, out of thousands in the nation, automatically starts with negative credibility points.
|
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago? Is this like when the Republicans made up the Biden rule because he said something one time in a floor speech? Because the Biden rule isn’t a thing. Never was a thing. Biden also says those hearings are one of his bigger mistakes as a senator. Not a good plan.
When you’re pulling sound bites from 3 decades ago for some slight edge to confirm a dude who member of 92k a year country club, but only pulls down 200k a year as a judge, maybe your nominee just sucks? Maybe he is just a sentient jar of mayonnaise and it’s time to cut your losses?
|
On September 26 2018 11:56 Introvert wrote:I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but McConnell's staff has been in the archives. Here is former Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden making the same point I did here days ago. An FBI report is a useless stalling tactic, and the Republicans on the Committee are right in trying to keep transparent stalling tactics to a minimum. The fact that this all happened after Feinstein had the letter for months was reason enough to push through this crapshow. An FBI will tell us nothing, and the fact that now Ramirez seems to want one as a condition for talking to the Committee shows what a game this is. They could find out nothing we don't know. Also, someone else pointed out that Anita Hill, before the FBI "investigation," was already cooperating with the Committee, providing an affidavit, speaking to committee staff, etc. Things neither Ford nor Ramirez are doing. https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/1044735563222437888As an aisde, I'm going to be amused by whatever Avenatti puts out (or how he excuses not doing it). Anyone willing to pick Avenatti, political operative, as their lawyer in this matter, out of thousands in the nation, automatically starts with negative credibility points.
Did you listen to the video? Biden correctly points out that THOMAS cannot rely on the FBI report because it does not reach conclusions. However, it does get the 'he said' 'she said' information that assist the senate in making a decision. You should listen to Anita Hill on this.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/19/anita-hill-good-morning-america-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-hirono-new-day-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
EDIT: also, consider Biden's today remarks. Biden was trying to widdle down THOMAS's play towards the FBI not deciding the case. Biden to this day thinks he should have run the hearing differently to shut down his Republican colleagues who were smearing Hill.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/21/biden-anita-hill-hearing-regret-nbc-intv-sot-ath-vpx.cnn
|
On September 26 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago? Is this like when the Republicans made up the Biden rule because he said something one time in a floor speech? Because the Biden rule isn’t a thing. Never was a thing. Biden also says those hearings are one of his bigger mistakes as a senator. Not a good plan.
When you’re pulling sound bites from 3 decades ago for some slight edge to confirm a dude who member of 92k a year country club, but only pulls down 200k a year as a judge, maybe your nominee just sucks? Maybe he is just a sentient jar of mayonnaise and it’s time to cut your losses?
oh give me a break, I've spent many posts in here discussing the inadequacies, shall we say, of these two stories so far. If only we could've discussed his record! But alas, the Democrats were not terribly interested in in anything like that (say, his over 300 opinions) during the hearings, so we got campaign speeches instead.
But no, unless the FBI process has substantially changed, I say listen to the former chairman. I know this and the "Biden rule" undercut the the whole "we were the civil ones" narrative, but still.
Kavanaugh wasn't my favorite pick, but this BS cannot be allowed to stand, so no. If he loses because of Flakey senators, let's see it.
|
On September 26 2018 12:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 11:56 Introvert wrote:I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but McConnell's staff has been in the archives. Here is former Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden making the same point I did here days ago. An FBI report is a useless stalling tactic, and the Republicans on the Committee are right in trying to keep transparent stalling tactics to a minimum. The fact that this all happened after Feinstein had the letter for months was reason enough to push through this crapshow. An FBI will tell us nothing, and the fact that now Ramirez seems to want one as a condition for talking to the Committee shows what a game this is. They could find out nothing we don't know. Also, someone else pointed out that Anita Hill, before the FBI "investigation," was already cooperating with the Committee, providing an affidavit, speaking to committee staff, etc. Things neither Ford nor Ramirez are doing. https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/1044735563222437888As an aisde, I'm going to be amused by whatever Avenatti puts out (or how he excuses not doing it). Anyone willing to pick Avenatti, political operative, as their lawyer in this matter, out of thousands in the nation, automatically starts with negative credibility points. Did you listen to the video? Biden correctly points out that THOMAS cannot rely on the FBI report because it does not reach conclusions. However, it does get the 'he said' 'she said' information that assist the senate in making a decision. You should listen to Anita Hill on this. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/19/anita-hill-good-morning-america-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-hirono-new-day-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
He also said" there's no reason you should know that." He was educating him. And now we all know! And now, since we all know, we can all stop calling for an FBI hearing that will tell us nothing new!
We already have the he said she said. Well kind of, neither woman will grace us with any sort of statement made under penalty in writing, only those on Kavanaugh's side have done so.
We;ll get both sides, there will be no actual evidence, and then they will vote. Still no one can explain what it is the FBI is supposed to find, but no matter. That's not the point.
|
On September 26 2018 12:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 12:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 26 2018 11:56 Introvert wrote:I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but McConnell's staff has been in the archives. Here is former Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden making the same point I did here days ago. An FBI report is a useless stalling tactic, and the Republicans on the Committee are right in trying to keep transparent stalling tactics to a minimum. The fact that this all happened after Feinstein had the letter for months was reason enough to push through this crapshow. An FBI will tell us nothing, and the fact that now Ramirez seems to want one as a condition for talking to the Committee shows what a game this is. They could find out nothing we don't know. Also, someone else pointed out that Anita Hill, before the FBI "investigation," was already cooperating with the Committee, providing an affidavit, speaking to committee staff, etc. Things neither Ford nor Ramirez are doing. https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/1044735563222437888As an aisde, I'm going to be amused by whatever Avenatti puts out (or how he excuses not doing it). Anyone willing to pick Avenatti, political operative, as their lawyer in this matter, out of thousands in the nation, automatically starts with negative credibility points. Did you listen to the video? Biden correctly points out that THOMAS cannot rely on the FBI report because it does not reach conclusions. However, it does get the 'he said' 'she said' information that assist the senate in making a decision. You should listen to Anita Hill on this. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/19/anita-hill-good-morning-america-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-hirono-new-day-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/ He also said" there's no reason you should know that." He was educating him. And now we all know! And now, since we all know, we can all stop calling for an FBI hearing that will tell us nothing new! We already have the he said she said. Well kind of, neither woman will grace us with any sort of statement made under penalty in writing, only those on Kavanaugh's side have done so. We;ll get both sides, there will be no actual evidence, and then they will vote. Still no one can explain what it is the FBI is supposed to find, but no matter. That's not the point.
Are you serious? You really think that you cannot find someone to explain to you what the FBI would do? Here is a sample from a 2 second google search. The FBI could get the best possible collection of the facts. Much like in the Anita Hill hearing, it likely would not be conclusive. But it would make sure that the discussion was about at least the things that were known to have happened.
And no less important is the task that many newly-minted special agents are assigned related to judicial nominees. At the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, trainees are immersed in the processes and protocols of a solid and exhaustive background investigation. So, when they arrive in their respective field divisions, they are already familiar with the aforementioned Carla F. Bad.
Who is she? Well, "she" is the readily memorized acronym that reminds investigators of just what to investigate when looking into someone's background. It is an enduring checklist that the FBI utilizes to assess honesty and trustworthiness in someone holding, or seeking to hold, a position of trust in our republic.
The acronym represents character, associates, reputation, loyalty, ability, finances, bias, alcohol and drugs. It was presumably employed during Judge Kavanaugh's multiple background investigations during his tenure in the Bush 43 White House, and when he was appointed a federal appeals judge in 2006.
So, should an accusation this significant be investigated? I certainly think so. Every potential victim deserves to be heard.
...
Not so much, though, when seeking answers from 36 years ago. But the FBI can and should exert due diligence in tracking down any available leads that will be uncovered by a renewed acquaintance with Carla F. Bad. And this would mean no assessments of the veracity of those interviewed, just a straight-down-the-line collection of facts.
Carla F. Bad has a voice and deserves to be heard.
Say her name.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/opinions/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-process-gagliano/index.html
EDIT: to put a fine point on it, why are Anita Hill and James A. Gagliano dead wrong about the need for an FBI investigation here?
|
On September 26 2018 12:23 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 12:14 Introvert wrote:On September 26 2018 12:10 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 26 2018 11:56 Introvert wrote:I'm sure you've all seen this by now, but McConnell's staff has been in the archives. Here is former Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden making the same point I did here days ago. An FBI report is a useless stalling tactic, and the Republicans on the Committee are right in trying to keep transparent stalling tactics to a minimum. The fact that this all happened after Feinstein had the letter for months was reason enough to push through this crapshow. An FBI will tell us nothing, and the fact that now Ramirez seems to want one as a condition for talking to the Committee shows what a game this is. They could find out nothing we don't know. Also, someone else pointed out that Anita Hill, before the FBI "investigation," was already cooperating with the Committee, providing an affidavit, speaking to committee staff, etc. Things neither Ford nor Ramirez are doing. https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/1044735563222437888As an aisde, I'm going to be amused by whatever Avenatti puts out (or how he excuses not doing it). Anyone willing to pick Avenatti, political operative, as their lawyer in this matter, out of thousands in the nation, automatically starts with negative credibility points. Did you listen to the video? Biden correctly points out that THOMAS cannot rely on the FBI report because it does not reach conclusions. However, it does get the 'he said' 'she said' information that assist the senate in making a decision. You should listen to Anita Hill on this. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/19/anita-hill-good-morning-america-kavanaugh-blasey-ford-hirono-new-day-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/ He also said" there's no reason you should know that." He was educating him. And now we all know! And now, since we all know, we can all stop calling for an FBI hearing that will tell us nothing new! We already have the he said she said. Well kind of, neither woman will grace us with any sort of statement made under penalty in writing, only those on Kavanaugh's side have done so. We;ll get both sides, there will be no actual evidence, and then they will vote. Still no one can explain what it is the FBI is supposed to find, but no matter. That's not the point. Are you serious? You really think that you cannot find someone to explain to you what the FBI would do? Here is a sample from a 2 second google search. The FBI could get the best possible collection of the facts. Much like in the Anita Hill hearing, it likely would not be conclusive. But it would make sure that the discussion was about at least the things that were known to have happened. Show nested quote +
And no less important is the task that many newly-minted special agents are assigned related to judicial nominees. At the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, trainees are immersed in the processes and protocols of a solid and exhaustive background investigation. So, when they arrive in their respective field divisions, they are already familiar with the aforementioned Carla F. Bad.
Who is she? Well, "she" is the readily memorized acronym that reminds investigators of just what to investigate when looking into someone's background. It is an enduring checklist that the FBI utilizes to assess honesty and trustworthiness in someone holding, or seeking to hold, a position of trust in our republic.
The acronym represents character, associates, reputation, loyalty, ability, finances, bias, alcohol and drugs. It was presumably employed during Judge Kavanaugh's multiple background investigations during his tenure in the Bush 43 White House, and when he was appointed a federal appeals judge in 2006.
So, should an accusation this significant be investigated? I certainly think so. Every potential victim deserves to be heard.
...
Not so much, though, when seeking answers from 36 years ago. But the FBI can and should exert due diligence in tracking down any available leads that will be uncovered by a renewed acquaintance with Carla F. Bad. And this would mean no assessments of the veracity of those interviewed, just a straight-down-the-line collection of facts.
Carla F. Bad has a voice and deserves to be heard.
Say her name.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/opinions/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-process-gagliano/index.htmlEDIT: to put a fine point on it, why are Anita Hill and James A. Gagliano dead wrong about the need for an FBI investigation here?
I refuse to believe that people actually want the FBI to investigate so that we can just get a bureaucratic version of what we already know.
It was nice of you to leave out the entire section in between.
But Ford needs to file a police report first. Bereft of a complaint, Montgomery County police have already stated an investigation is not forthcoming.
If Ford doesn't file a report, the Senate Judiciary Committee could still request the FBI begin an investigation, if it deems it essential to its confirmation process. And it has done so before -- when it requested an investigation into Anita Hill's claims against then-Judge Clarence Thomas in 1991.
But forewarned is forearmed. With the limited details the accuser has thus far been able to recall, any investigation of an incident purported to occur during the 1980s would be difficult. Investigators would be charged with tracking down external potential witnesses (while conducting a neighborhood canvass) who very well may have moved away from the area, have no recollection of the event or may even have passed away.
And potential party attendees -- if they can actually be found -- may fear the scrutiny of a FBI investigation with such seemingly high stakes. Recall that failure to be forthright, lying to an FBI agent, is a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and is tantamount to perjury -- bringing with it a sentencing exposure of five years in prison.
Thirty-six years from now, an FBI agent investigating an incident reported in 2018 would have much more to go on. "Digital exhaust" left by personal electronic devices, social media imprints, toll payment trackers, DNA analysis, license plate readers and the proliferation of security cameras would make this infinitely easier in the 21st century.
He actually spends most of his time talking about it wouldn't be particularly useful. I object because it's transparent stalling tactic by a side that held onto a letter for 6 weeks then leaked it to the media, forcing the person to out herself when she didn't want to. If your side really believed this essay, that an FBI investigation is almost certainly futile, then they wouldn't have spent so much time harping on it. It would be mere background noise.
For your convenience I have also italicized two particular bits that do not get enough attention.
|
On September 26 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago?
Something a government official said on TV 30 years ago vs something an anti Trump protester claimed happened 36 years ago where all witnesses she claimed were there have no clue what she’s talking about including her lifelong best friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh.
You’re hanging your hat on baseless allegations made 36 years ago! Any word on whether she is actually going to testify tomorrow? What state is she in right now? Why the media blackout.
|
On September 26 2018 13:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2018 12:03 Plansix wrote:
So we are going to hang our hats on something Joe Biden said like 30 years ago? Something a government official said on TV 30 years ago vs something an anti Trump protester claimed happened 36 years ago where all witnesses she claimed were there have no clue what she’s talking about including her lifelong best friend who said she never even met Kavanaugh. You’re hanging your hat on baseless allegations made 36 years ago! Any word on whether she is actually going to testify tomorrow? What state is she in right now? Why the media blackout.
Are you forgetting the other accusers? Why are you so desperate to have this piece of trash confirmed? Are you so afraid of getting destroyed in the mid terms and not being able to have trump appoint a breathing pile of excrement to the supreme court so that you can have a chance at getting rights stripped away from women and minorities that you're willing to die on this hill?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
