|
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 30 2018 08:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:43 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:39 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute. The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview. What I mean by that is that what they called for is exactly what they are getting. "Investigate Fords allegations, you can talk to Rick, but not Patty" is not what was asked for, I am sorry. Leaving out the 3e because of lack of, anything really, I could understand somewhat. Who are they not talking to, but should? This isn't about Safeway, is it? Nevermind that they can ask Judge himself about that. It doesn't matter to her recollection of the crime. I suspect we'll find, or someone will leak, the rules and they will just what we'd need for a targeted background investigation relating to these two specific incidents. But maybe not. I would let the FBI do more or less what they want (since they've been sent out anyways), but the danger is that no one knows where to stop or what is and isn't relevant. For the record the White House claims they are more or less leaving the agents to do their thing, just limiting their scope. I want more info. The FBI knows the meaning of the word scope. They know what 'investigate Ford's allegation' means. They know that means to not check his Basketball tickets, unless they discover a link between the 2 (really unlikely).
Do you agree that if the FBI was given a limited list of people they are allowed to talk to, and that some key people may be missing from that list (I know, this is all hypothetical at this point), that this will taint the investigation? Isn't there a tiny voice at the back of your head wondering if they aren't trying to hide something?
|
On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective?
They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez."
People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards.
|
On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. Maybe we aren't clear.
The Judiciary committee instruction of "Investigate Ford and Ramirez allegations" is perfectly fine.
Its the rumor of the WH imposing a further limit of a list of people the FBI is allowed to talk to that has us up in arms.
|
On September 30 2018 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:48 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:43 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:39 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute. The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview. What I mean by that is that what they called for is exactly what they are getting. "Investigate Fords allegations, you can talk to Rick, but not Patty" is not what was asked for, I am sorry. Leaving out the 3e because of lack of, anything really, I could understand somewhat. Who are they not talking to, but should? This isn't about Safeway, is it? Nevermind that they can ask Judge himself about that. It doesn't matter to her recollection of the crime. I suspect we'll find, or someone will leak, the rules and they will just what we'd need for a targeted background investigation relating to these two specific incidents. But maybe not. I would let the FBI do more or less what they want (since they've been sent out anyways), but the danger is that no one knows where to stop or what is and isn't relevant. For the record the White House claims they are more or less leaving the agents to do their thing, just limiting their scope. I want more info. The FBI knows the meaning of the word scope. They know what 'investigate Ford's allegation' means. They know that means to not check his Basketball tickets, unless they discover a link between the 2 (really unlikely). Do you agree that if the FBI was given a limited list of people they are allowed to talk to, and that some key people may be missing from that list (I know, this is all hypothetical at this point), that this will taint the investigation? Isn't there a tiny voice at the back of your head wondering if they aren't trying to hide something?
I suspect the list of who they can talk to is quite broad and this hub bub is usual garbage that supposed "journalists" have been putting out this week. if the worst thing is that they can't go ask Safeway if they have employment records from 36 years ago (but can still ask Judge) then I suspect the list is quite broad. If it leaks and that's not true I'll say it.
Maybe I'll just say this. When we get the report, we'll have better of idea of who they talked to and what they asked about. Now the Democrats will say it is incomplete no matter what, but ignore them. If we get detailed statements from everyone we know of already, repeating what they already said, then I think we're in the clear. We'll know when we see the report. I suspect it won't take them a week.
On September 30 2018 08:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. Maybe we aren't clear. The Judiciary committee instruction of "Investigate Ford and Ramirez allegations" is perfectly fine. Its the rumor of the WH imposing a further limit of a list of people the FBI is allowed to talk to that has us up in arms.
See above
edit: by the way, the media running with this is going to be it's own story. By reporting that, for instance, the FBI can't query safeway, then I suspect we will hear about how Judge could just lie to the FBI and no one would know. If this wasn't leaked no witness would have any idea what they FBI knows and be scared to lie about something that was easily checkable. This is a self-own that will become it's own story line.
|
On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards.
It's like we're going in circles here. WHO determined what the credible claims were? The White House? Clearly it wasn't the FBI. You're ok with that? I'll wait to see what Swetnick says in her interview, but the fact that IF she had credible evidence they would still ignore her is a problem.
I agree with what you said above that all we can do is wait to see how many people they actually talked to in the report. That will tell us a lot about what they were allowed to do.
|
On September 30 2018 08:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:48 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:43 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:39 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute. The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview. What I mean by that is that what they called for is exactly what they are getting. "Investigate Fords allegations, you can talk to Rick, but not Patty" is not what was asked for, I am sorry. Leaving out the 3e because of lack of, anything really, I could understand somewhat. Who are they not talking to, but should? This isn't about Safeway, is it? Nevermind that they can ask Judge himself about that. It doesn't matter to her recollection of the crime. I suspect we'll find, or someone will leak, the rules and they will just what we'd need for a targeted background investigation relating to these two specific incidents. But maybe not. I would let the FBI do more or less what they want (since they've been sent out anyways), but the danger is that no one knows where to stop or what is and isn't relevant. For the record the White House claims they are more or less leaving the agents to do their thing, just limiting their scope. I want more info. The FBI knows the meaning of the word scope. They know what 'investigate Ford's allegation' means. They know that means to not check his Basketball tickets, unless they discover a link between the 2 (really unlikely). Do you agree that if the FBI was given a limited list of people they are allowed to talk to, and that some key people may be missing from that list (I know, this is all hypothetical at this point), that this will taint the investigation? Isn't there a tiny voice at the back of your head wondering if they aren't trying to hide something? I suspect the list of who they can talk to is quite broad and this hub bub is usual garbage that supposed "journalists" have been putting out this week. if the worst thing is that they can't go ask Safeway if they have employment records from 36 years ago (but can still ask Judge) then I suspect the list is quite broad. If it leaks and that's not true I'll say it. Maybe I'll just say this. When we get the report, we'll have better of idea of who they talked to and what they asked about. Now the Democrats will say it is incomplete no matter what, but ignore them. If we get detailed statements from everyone we know of already, repeating what they already said, then I think we're in the clear. We'll know when we see the report. I suspect it won't take them a week. Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:59 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. Maybe we aren't clear. The Judiciary committee instruction of "Investigate Ford and Ramirez allegations" is perfectly fine. Its the rumor of the WH imposing a further limit of a list of people the FBI is allowed to talk to that has us up in arms. See above I'm not specifically focussed on Safeway but it serves as a good example.
Asking Judge and Ford is a 'he said, she said'. Asking Safeway (if they have the data) is a cold hard fact.
Facts are important.
Thank you for answering my questions, I can understand where your coming from.
|
United States24782 Posts
On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards.
As I said before, the investigation is already bounded by what seems to be a strict time limit. Whether I agree with the exact duration or not, in principle, it makes sense given the circumstances. However, the other restrictions beyond a general tasking (as others have said) does not make sense to me unless an attempt is being made to prevent the discovery of other crimes. As I asked before, what is the Whitehouse trying to prevent?
|
On September 30 2018 09:02 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. It's like we're going in circles here. WHO determined what the credible claims were? The White House? Clearly it wasn't the FBI. You're ok with that? I'll wait to see what Swetnick says in her interview, but the fact that IF she had credible evidence they would still ignore her is a problem. I agree with what you said above that all we can do is wait to see how many people they actually talked to in the report. That will tell us a lot about what they were allowed to do.
The Committee did, along with the White House it seems. Ford provided letters and names, Ramirez, even though her story is pretty bad (after consulting with my lawyers...") but at least they have some kind of evidence and the story is possible. Avanatti has done zero to cooperate, and yet is claiming a 15 year old high school student was a figure in rape gangs (or at least knew of them, see the weaselly worded affidavit). Why should they give into his demands? Either way works for him, either his client never has to defend her story, and he claims there is some corruption, or he puts out items with almost no evidence that a willing media will vacuum right up. Win-win for 2020.
|
On September 30 2018 09:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:59 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:55 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:48 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:43 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:39 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute. The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview. What I mean by that is that what they called for is exactly what they are getting. "Investigate Fords allegations, you can talk to Rick, but not Patty" is not what was asked for, I am sorry. Leaving out the 3e because of lack of, anything really, I could understand somewhat. Who are they not talking to, but should? This isn't about Safeway, is it? Nevermind that they can ask Judge himself about that. It doesn't matter to her recollection of the crime. I suspect we'll find, or someone will leak, the rules and they will just what we'd need for a targeted background investigation relating to these two specific incidents. But maybe not. I would let the FBI do more or less what they want (since they've been sent out anyways), but the danger is that no one knows where to stop or what is and isn't relevant. For the record the White House claims they are more or less leaving the agents to do their thing, just limiting their scope. I want more info. The FBI knows the meaning of the word scope. They know what 'investigate Ford's allegation' means. They know that means to not check his Basketball tickets, unless they discover a link between the 2 (really unlikely). Do you agree that if the FBI was given a limited list of people they are allowed to talk to, and that some key people may be missing from that list (I know, this is all hypothetical at this point), that this will taint the investigation? Isn't there a tiny voice at the back of your head wondering if they aren't trying to hide something? I suspect the list of who they can talk to is quite broad and this hub bub is usual garbage that supposed "journalists" have been putting out this week. if the worst thing is that they can't go ask Safeway if they have employment records from 36 years ago (but can still ask Judge) then I suspect the list is quite broad. If it leaks and that's not true I'll say it. Maybe I'll just say this. When we get the report, we'll have better of idea of who they talked to and what they asked about. Now the Democrats will say it is incomplete no matter what, but ignore them. If we get detailed statements from everyone we know of already, repeating what they already said, then I think we're in the clear. We'll know when we see the report. I suspect it won't take them a week. On September 30 2018 08:59 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. Maybe we aren't clear. The Judiciary committee instruction of "Investigate Ford and Ramirez allegations" is perfectly fine. Its the rumor of the WH imposing a further limit of a list of people the FBI is allowed to talk to that has us up in arms. See above I'm not specifically focussed on Safeway but it serves as a good example. Asking Judge and Ford is a 'he said, she said'. Asking Safeway (if they have the data) is a cold hard fact. Facts are important. Thank you for answering my questions, I can understand where your coming from.
See my edit above this post. Before this story leaked Judge would be compelled to tell the truth about Safeway, if the FBI even thought it was relevant. Now he would think that maybe he can lie. When the FBI comes to talk to you, you don't know what they do, and that's part of their power.
And who knows, if the FBI sees something they can go back the White House and ask for it. I think the report will tell us more, you can be sure that Flake et al will demand more if it looks incomplete.
|
On September 30 2018 09:04 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. As I said before, the investigation is already bounded by what seems to be a strict time limit. Whether I agree with the exact duration or not, in principle, it makes sense given the circumstances. However, the other restrictions beyond a general tasking (as others have said) does not make sense to me unless an attempt is being made to prevent the discovery of other crimes. As I asked before, what is the Whitehouse trying to prevent? Introvert previously said he agrees with a scope limit to stop it becoming a week long fishing expedition to find any dirt they can.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 30 2018 08:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:43 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:39 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:33 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
The Anita Hill investigation didn’t have specific witnesses that were off limits as far as I know. And the Justice Department normally manages investigations. I find it hard to believe that anyone at the Justice Department created the list. If the list was public, we could would have a better understanding of the reasoning why those witnesses are off limits. This news does directly conflict with the statements made yesterday about how much freedom the FBI would be given. This is the statement they put out: + Show Spoiler +They specifically say it is limited to current credible accusations. That means no deep dives into college life, they are looking into specific incidents. On September 30 2018 08:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2018 08:21 Introvert wrote:
Remember when everyone clamored about an Anita Hill-type FBI investigation? it's amazing the speed at which we've moved the goalposts and no one can even acknowledge it. Everyone wanted an investigation to look into Ford's claim. That is what they are doing. They even threw Ramirez in there. Whether or not you think he lied under oath about his drinking is not at issue, more over his statements haven't even been inconsistent. Again, like the falsehood that still exists in this thread about the White House having knowledge, it appears that people weren't actually listening the testimony but typing while listening, and so listening rather badly.
What's happening is what was always going to happen. people want a fishing expedition. They got their first demand, now we blow right on by to the next one.
As for Avanatii, now the WSJ, in addition to the NYT, (I think) says they have found zero corroborating evidence or witnesses. They are treating it like a farce, and until some evidence appears, it will continue to be treated that way.
To reiterate, the fight was never about his drinking habits until the Democratic senators tried to make that a thing, way after we initially dealt with this FBI nonsense. No fishing is needed. The FBI is competent. If you tell them to investigate Ford/Ramirez and give them a week that is what they will do. And if they believe they need to talk to person X for information about that then they should be able to, now they can't. And I'm sure they will talk to everyone that Ford and Ramirez named. That part doesn't seem to be in dispute. The limitations appear to be put on by the WH, the Judiciary committee statement calling for the investigation is meaningless to dispute that the FBI has been limited in who they can interview. What I mean by that is that what they called for is exactly what they are getting. "Investigate Fords allegations, you can talk to Rick, but not Patty" is not what was asked for, I am sorry. Leaving out the 3e because of lack of, anything really, I could understand somewhat. Who are they not talking to, but should? This isn't about Safeway, is it? Nevermind that they can ask Judge himself about that. It doesn't matter to her recollection of the crime. I suspect we'll find, or someone will leak, the rules and they will just what we'd need for a targeted background investigation relating to these two specific incidents. But maybe not. I would let the FBI do more or less what they want (since they've been sent out anyways), but the danger is that no one knows where to stop or what is and isn't relevant. For the record the White House claims they are more or less leaving the agents to do their thing, just limiting their scope. I want more info.
That assumes ofcourse that finding bad things through a fishing expedition is a bad thing, rather then discovering that there is something wrong with a SC nominee and that maybe someone without this found dirty should be put on the bench instead.
"Its ok that he is a bad choice in retrospect, so long as we didn't look hard enough to find it before we put him there".
|
According to NBC, there are also limits on what they can investigate, including the allegations that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker and things like confirming that Mark Judge worked at Safeway in 1982. To me, if this is true, then it confirms they're trying to hide something they already know or trying to block finding proof that he committed perjury.
But as of now, the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there, one of the sources was told. Ford said in congressional testimony Thursday that those records would help her narrow the time frame of the alleged incident which she recalls happening some time in the summer of 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. Those details may be pertinent to investigating claims from Ramirez who described an alleged incident of sexual misconduct she said occurred while Kavanaugh was inebriated. Ramirez's lawyer said Saturday that she had been contacted by the FBI and would cooperate.
The conditions under which the FBI's reopened background check are occurring appears to differ from the one envisioned by Flake, who used his leverage as a swing vote to pressure the Trump administration to order the FBI investigation.
Flake said Friday he thought the FBI should decide the scope of the investigation.
www.nbcnews.com
|
On September 30 2018 09:04 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. As I said before, the investigation is already bounded by what seems to be a strict time limit. Whether I agree with the exact duration or not, in principle, it makes sense given the circumstances. However, the other restrictions beyond a general tasking (as others have said) does not make sense to me unless an attempt is being made to prevent the discovery of other crimes. As I asked before, what is the Whitehouse trying to prevent?
A fishing expedition, as I said. I think your line of question reveals what is really at the heart of this. An "FBI investigation" is about finding something they can hang their hats on. He's been through all these other background checks before. What new crimes are you concerned about? The thing I see mentioned the most is perjury about alcholo, but a look at his statements before the Committee and the statements made by others, even negative ones, are in no way inconsistent with each other. He said he got too drunk at times. I think he even said he may have passed out and/or vomited. just that he never was in a state where he was "blackout drunk" which is neither passed out or simply inebriated.
The only reason to ask for this to be open ended is to get us closer to the midterms. Kavanaugh's been though the background ringer multiple times already. What "new crimes" could there be that would be found?
I'm curious why people seem to think they FBI would find "other crimes" here.
|
What is wrong with fishing expeditions if they catch fish?
|
Alright I gotta head out for the evening but I'll extend an olive branch and say that if the report looks like they didn't get to people that were named as witnesses, then we have a problem. But I suspect the list is quite open, but does exclude Ms. Swetnick, for reasons stated above.
|
The fact the list came from McGahn, the least impartial person in this process, should worry anyone. If the FBI cant even look into whether Kavanaugh's claims about drinking are true (which is key to Ramirez's claim) them I'm going to start warming up my "this investigation was a sham" post.
Source:
Especially in light of the President saying there would be no limits.
|
On September 30 2018 07:58 Plansix wrote:
He was never really CEO material. Good hype man for a private company, but not someone who should be representing the interests of share holders.
Also, that think settled fast. Tesla’s attorneys settled that shit instantly.
It's not the worst in the grand scheme of things for Elon or Tesla. It's a pretty fair settlement.
TL;DR
-$20M personal fine
-$20M fine to Tesla, Inc.
-Does not admit guilt
-Retains CEO
-Resign within 45 days from position as chairman of the board
-Barred from chairman of board for 3 years
-Tesla, Inc. is required to hire 2 new independent board members
-Tesla required to created independent committee to oversee investor communications
-Required to abide by communication rules set by board and new committee
-The $40M in total fines will be redistributed to "harmed investors under a court-approved process"
Some fines, he's no longer chairman of the board, but he is still CEO.
His communications will have to have some oversight (less random tweeting/stock changing tweets)
Fairly reasonable steps.
|
United States24782 Posts
On September 30 2018 09:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. As I said before, the investigation is already bounded by what seems to be a strict time limit. Whether I agree with the exact duration or not, in principle, it makes sense given the circumstances. However, the other restrictions beyond a general tasking (as others have said) does not make sense to me unless an attempt is being made to prevent the discovery of other crimes. As I asked before, what is the Whitehouse trying to prevent? A fishing expedition, as I said. I think your line of question reveals what is really at the heart of this. An "FBI investigation" is about finding something they can hang their hats on. He's been through all these other background checks before. What new crimes are you concerned about? The thing I see mentioned the most is perjury about alcholo, but a look at his statements before the Committee and the statements made by others, even negative ones, are in no way inconsistent with each other. He said he got too drunk at times. I think he even said he may have passed out and/or vomited. just that he never was in a state where he was "blackout drunk" which is neither passed out or simply inebriated. The only reason to ask for this to be open ended is to get us closer to the midterms. Kavanaugh's been though the background ringer multiple times already. What "new crimes" could there be that would be found? I'm curious why people seem to think they FBI would find "other crimes" here.
Regarding your last question, there is a lot of smoke and so people think there may be fire.
Regarding my question, what is a fishing expedition? I suppose if the FBI randomly decided to interview Kavanaugh's basketball team's parents' first cousins about whether or not they have reason to believe that Kavanaugh engaged in illegal match fixing in South Korea in 2009, that would be an inappropriate use of FBI resources assuming leads did not actually go there. However, the FBI would be horribly incompetent in that case. If the FBI were to try doing that, it would make sense for someone to rein them in to not waste FBI resources, and to not unnecessarily harass the first cousins of the parents of the basketball team members. So I guess that's the answer? The Whitehouse is limiting the scope of what the FBI can investigate for one week because it doesn't want the FBI, in its own incompetence, to unnecessarily harass people and waste FBI resources?
|
On September 30 2018 09:04 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. As I said before, the investigation is already bounded by what seems to be a strict time limit. Whether I agree with the exact duration or not, in principle, it makes sense given the circumstances. However, the other restrictions beyond a general tasking (as others have said) does not make sense to me unless an attempt is being made to prevent the discovery of other crimes. As I asked before, what is the Whitehouse trying to prevent?
They are trying to prevent this dragging on forever.
The time limit and the scope of the investigation are closely related,the bigger the scope of the investigation the more time will be needed.
What if they limit the time but not the scope of the investigation? Then you could have outcome:well there is something else we need to investigate but we don't have the time for it,we need more time or we cant have a vote.
Sry to say but the idea that the white house is trying to hide something horrible from kavanaughs past seems crazy to me,conspiracy theory if you will. If there was something horrible that they know about,would they ever have taken the risk to nominate him?
|
On September 30 2018 09:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. As I said before, the investigation is already bounded by what seems to be a strict time limit. Whether I agree with the exact duration or not, in principle, it makes sense given the circumstances. However, the other restrictions beyond a general tasking (as others have said) does not make sense to me unless an attempt is being made to prevent the discovery of other crimes. As I asked before, what is the Whitehouse trying to prevent? A fishing expedition, as I said. I think your line of question reveals what is really at the heart of this. An "FBI investigation" is about finding something they can hang their hats on. He's been through all these other background checks before. What new crimes are you concerned about? The thing I see mentioned the most is perjury about alcholo, but a look at his statements before the Committee and the statements made by others, even negative ones, are in no way inconsistent with each other. He said he got too drunk at times. I think he even said he may have passed out and/or vomited. just that he never was in a state where he was "blackout drunk" which is neither passed out or simply inebriated. The only reason to ask for this to be open ended is to get us closer to the midterms. Kavanaugh's been though the background ringer multiple times already. What "new crimes" could there be that would be found? I'm curious why people seem to think they FBI would find "other crimes" here.
I have to agree with you here. This isn't a fishing expedition. It's no outrage that the FBI won't be investigating a Supreme Court nominee's college drinking.
You may remember in the flurry of accusations that a man accused Brett Kavanaugh of raping a woman on a boat in Rhode Island in 1985. He later recanted. Now, Grassley's office is making a criminal referral for making false statements to the committee under 18 USC 1001 & 1505.
|
United States24782 Posts
On September 30 2018 09:34 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 09:04 micronesia wrote:On September 30 2018 08:55 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2018 08:51 micronesia wrote:
Introvert can you clear something up for me. The Whitehouse has imposed a time limit on this investigation and a limit on how it is investigated. The time limit I understand. The second limit I do not. What is the Whitehouse trying to prevent by limiting what the FBI can do with the time allotted? The only thing I can think of is that the Whitehouse is trying to prevent the discovery and/or release of information that Kavanaugh committed crimes. Why would that be an appropriate objective? They limited them to current credible accusations. I don't see what's wrong with that, it gives direction. That's what people were supposedly asking for for weeks. What do you want them to do? He's already had one background check recently for when he was nominated. They are saying "investigate the claims of Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez." People now want the FBI to do a spanning check of his entire life. That was never in the cards. As I said before, the investigation is already bounded by what seems to be a strict time limit. Whether I agree with the exact duration or not, in principle, it makes sense given the circumstances. However, the other restrictions beyond a general tasking (as others have said) does not make sense to me unless an attempt is being made to prevent the discovery of other crimes. As I asked before, what is the Whitehouse trying to prevent? They are trying to prevent this dragging on forever. The time limit and the scope of the investigation are closely related,the bigger the scope of the investigation the more time will be needed. What if they limit the time but not the scope of the investigation? Then you could have outcome:well there is something else we need to investigate but we don't have the time for it,we need more time or we cant have a vote. Similar to my last post, that implies the FBI wasn't competent, or alternately, that there wasn't actually enough time. The only reason to limit the scope in ADDITION to the time limit that I can think of are FBI incompetence or trying to prevent the discovery/confirmation of crime.
Sry to say but it seems crazy to me that the white house is trying to hide something horrible from kavanaughs past. If there was something horrible would they ever have taken the risk to nominate him? Becomes bit like conspiracy theory. This probably would be a reasonable stance prior to Trump becoming president. Not anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
