|
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 |
United States43964 Posts
On September 30 2018 09:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 09:16 Introvert wrote: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.
Your suggestion that the would be investigating the drinking implies that you don't understand the issue. The drinking isn't the concern, it's the perjury. They'd be investigating the lying about the drinking, not the drinking itself. You can have someone who got drunk in college on the Supreme Court, but you probably shouldn't have a perjurer.
Do you believe Kavanaugh when he swears under oath that he never got drunk?
|
On September 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:
Do you believe Kavanaugh when he swears under oath that he never got drunk?
As you know, Kavanaugh did not say this.
|
United States43964 Posts
On September 30 2018 11:49 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:
Do you believe Kavanaugh when he swears under oath that he never got drunk? As you know, Kavanaugh did not say this.
You know what I mean. Not that he has never been drunk ever, but he made specific refutable claims about his lifestyle.
|
On September 30 2018 09:37 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 09:34 pmh wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
If the president could actually tell the FBI what to investigate and what not to, there wouldn't be the Russia investigation.
|
This is insanity. 48 hours ago it was universal across the Right that there should be no FBI investigation of KAVANAUGH. Go back 100 pages. Every borderline rightist was consistent on this point. And now, we are supposed to take limits by Trump on what kind of witnesses should be allowed at this FBI investigation? The bad faith here is just comical. You can't say 48 hours ago THERE SHOULD BE NO INVESTIGATION, and then 100 pages and 48 hours later tell me you then know THESE ARE LIMITS THERE SHOULD BE ON THE INVESTIGATION. Donald Trump at least had the basic sense of self to see that he couldn't then insist on some kind of partisan limits on what the investigation would investigate after peeing on the very idea of the investigation.
|
On September 30 2018 12:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:This is insanity. 48 hours ago it was universal across the Right that there should be no FBI investigation of KAVANAUGH. Go back 100 pages. Every borderline rightist was consistent on this point. And now, we are supposed to take limits by Trump on what kind of witnesses should be allowed at this FBI investigation? The bad faith here is just comical. You can't say 48 hours ago THERE SHOULD BE NO INVESTIGATION, and then 100 pages and 48 hours later tell me you then know THESE ARE LIMITS THERE SHOULD BE ON THE INVESTIGATION. Donald Trump at least had the basic sense of self to see that he couldn't then insist on some kind of partisan limits on what the investigation would investigate after peeing on the very idea of the investigation. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1046230634103025664
That's pretty big and really serves my theory that Trump is now trying to ditch Kavanaugh.
|
Kavanaugh was hand picked by the federalist society as the anti regulation golden child. It makes sense Trump wouldn’t be that invested.
|
Well I guess if Trump is saying it then it must be true. /s
If they are limited I'm confident someone on the inside will leak it. I'm glad Trump is on the record saying this.
|
On September 30 2018 13:02 On_Slaught wrote:
Well I guess if Trump is saying it then it must be true. /s
If they are limited I'm confident someone on the inside will leak it. I'm glad Trump is on the record saying this.
There is some debate as to whether DJT said that, or whether Scavino said it in Trump's voice as a part of his role as the communications shop guy. The rumor is that there are anti and pro KAVANAUGH factions within the WH. Either way, publicly saying there will be no limits on a weekend virtually guarantees that any such limits will blown away by Monday.
|
On September 30 2018 09:22 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Tesla should've done all of those things already. Hopefully they'll appoint a competent coo to take some pressure off the guy.
|
Norway28789 Posts
I personally thought that tweet was just him being high. $420, really?
|
I don't understand why the FBI is being limited either. Again, it confuses me that the Republicans are doing this. It's horrible optics again, because see the posts here. The FBI is full of extremely, extremely seasoned investigators, I'm relatively confident they know how to handle an investigation, and if told they have a week are going to know who they need to talk to in order to conclude the investigation as quickly and to the best of their abilities as possible.
Trump's being smart in saying he wanted one with no limits; if you're doing it, do it, and be as hands off as possible so it doesn't look shady as all hell.
I think saying that 'they shouldn't investigate Kavanaugh's drinking' is pretty ridiculous, since it's key to all three accusations. It's like saying you should investigate a man possessing a gun, but not whether or not he had a permit for it. The behaviour he's accused of goes 100% with a specific sort of drinking culture, so its materially important whether or not he was part of that culture.
The attitude of 'give them a sham investigation so they'll shut up' doesn't work when every detail of it is being scrutinised by the press, and getting to the end of this with a dark cloud hanging over it because of unspecific but potentially influential limitations ruins the entire point of having the investigation. What's the benefit if you get to the end and the FBI themselves are having to give their assessment with caveats?
By the way, what happened with those guys who claimed that they were the ones who raped Ford, not I Heart Beer Brett?
|
On September 30 2018 18:14 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I personally thought that tweet was just him being high. $420, really?
I heard they calculated with a premium to buy back the stock the price was estimated at $419 but he decided yeah to just round up because of that coincidence. Maybe it was on the Joe Rogan interview.
|
On September 30 2018 11:49 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2018 10:01 KwarK wrote:
Do you believe Kavanaugh when he swears under oath that he never got drunk? As you know, Kavanaugh did not say this.
He did insist that he never blacked out/ passed out from drinking, which friends and other classmates of his explicitly said were lies.
|
|
|
So now we have multiple sources who have said that even though Trump posted on Twitter to the contrary, there have been no changes to the limitations placed on the FBI investigation. This wouldn't be the first time, or even hundredth time, that Trump has lied on Twitter or other places to the American people.
Limits to FBI's Kavanaugh investigation have not changed, despite Trump's comments
WASHINGTON — The FBI has received no new instructions from the White House about how to proceed with its weeklong investigation of sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a senior U.S. official and another source familiar with the matter tell NBC News.
According to the sources, the president’s Saturday night tweet saying he wants the FBI to interview whoever agents deem appropriate has not changed the limits imposed by the White House counsel’s office on the FBI investigation — including a specific witness list that does not include Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school.
Also not on the list, the sources say, are former classmates who have contradicted Kavanaugh’s account of his college alcohol consumption, instead describing him as a frequent, heavy drinker. The FBI is also not authorized to interview high school classmates who could shed light on what some people have called untruths in Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony about alleged sexual references in his high school yearbook.
The sources said nothing would preclude the FBI from asking Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge, who is on the witness list, about Swetnick’s allegations, but the sources stressed that this is not a top priority.
Separately, a White House official made clear that the White House is the client in this process. This is not an FBI criminal investigation — it is a background investigation in which the FBI is acting on behalf of the White House. Procedurally, the White House does not allow the FBI to investigate as it sees fit, the official acknowledged; the White House sets the parameters.
....
|
I guess I'll just wait for SHS to say something
|
So they cant even ask about the yearbook? The fix is in. All we can do is hope people in the FBI continue to leak so everyone in the country knows what is happening. Maybe if the rancor around these limitations gets loud enough the WH will be forced to undo them.
Or since Trump's tweets are official proclamations, then just ignore McGahns letter. One can dream.
|
Why does an investigation into Ford or Ramirez's claims need the yearbook?
|
Because his claims about the sexual nature of his yearbook and his drinking habits in high school tie directly to the credibility of his, Ford's and Ramirez's claims. Somebody who would fill their yearbook with references to wild drinking and sex is exactly the type of person who might do this sort of thing as opposed to the angel Kavanaugh painted himself as in HS. If he really was an angel in HS who never got super drunk then that does a lot to undercut both Ramirez and Ford. If he lied? I think youd agree he should be toast if he did.
Having said that, it shouldn't matter if you can tie it to those cases if you care about finding out whether he lied to Congress. That conservatives are so quick to say things like his drinking history somehow isnt relevant when there is clearly enough smoke to at least question his claim of being a mild drinker tells me they are afraid of what they will find if they really looked into this guy. The new calculus from Republican leadership is that a superficial investigation is the only way to get him through. Graham said he expects the thing to be done by tomorrow or Tuesday for fucks sake! They still plan on voting him in this coming week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
