Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Sure. And when new information/allegations that they didn't have previously come up -- as now -- they can investigate again -- unless the Repubs don't want them to. They didn't know anything about Ford or her claims during the last go-round.

Well, while the FBI was doing its work we know that at least two democrats had her claims, and said nothing to the FBI until the hearings were finished.

And a FBI investigation would require: getting statements from Ford, BK, PJ and Judge and the other guy at the party.

4 of the 5 of which we already have. The two principals are scheduled to testify monday.

the FBI adds zero value at this point
 
Well, while the FBI was doing its work we know that at least two democrats had her claims, and said nothing to the FBI until the hearings were finished.

And a FBI investigation would require: getting statements from Ford, BK, PJ and Judge and the other guy at the party.

4 of the 5 of which we already have. The two principals are scheduled to testify monday.

the FBI adds zero value at this point

Statements made to the press are not made under penalty of perjury. And the FBI could conduct extensive interviews with anyone who might have information about this, not just the principals themselves. The FBI could also look at medical and psychiatric records, employment records and reviews, and anything else bearing on the behavior and veracity of the principals.
 
Well, while the FBI was doing its work we know that at least two democrats had her claims, and said nothing to the FBI until the hearings were finished.

And a FBI investigation would require: getting statements from Ford, BK, PJ and Judge and the other guy at the party.

4 of the 5 of which we already have. The two principals are scheduled to testify monday.

the FBI adds zero value at this point

I see the Majority has reached out to PJ and the 4th guy, who we don't know yet, and has taken a statement under oath of BK already.

The Minority is refusing to participate in interviews.

Sounds legit.
 
Statements made to the press are not made under penalty of perjury. And the FBI could conduct extensive interviews with anyone who might have information about this, not just the principals themselves. The FBI could also look at medical and psychiatric records, employment records and reviews, and anything else bearing on the behavior and veracity of the principals.

so could the Senate, but I don't think Ford is going to turn all that over voluntarily
 
I see the Majority has reached out to PJ and the 4th guy, who we don't know yet, and has taken a statement under oath of BK already.

The Minority is refusing to participate in interviews.

Sounds legit.

What's your definition of 'legitimate'? Does it include blocking all confirmations until a president of a different party takes office? Because that's the current standard for acceptable behavior in these matters.
 
What's your definition of 'legitimate'? Does it include blocking all confirmations until a president of a different party takes office? Because that's the current standard for acceptable behavior in these matters.

Yeah, it was too bad that Dems were so confident that Hilldawg was going to win that they let themselves get totally played.

Too bad, I liked Garland, he spoke at a relative's graduation after Barry nominated him.
 
Well, while the FBI was doing its work we know that at least two democrats had her claims, and said nothing to the FBI until the hearings were finished.

And a FBI investigation would require: getting statements from Ford, BK, PJ and Judge and the other guy at the party.

4 of the 5 of which we already have. The two principals are scheduled to testify monday.

the FBI adds zero value at this point

Are you suggesting the Dems are playing around and manipulating when information is being released to delay the vote to after the mid-terms?

"The Dems could've released the info earlier, during the investigation by the FBI, but no...they held onto the allegations to start up a whole new investigation, in the hopes that the mid-terms might happen, and/or the populous becomes jaded with the process and just wants BK to go away."

Is that what you're suggesting? That the Dems are playing dirty pool?
 
Are you suggesting the Dems are playing around and manipulating when information is being released to delay the vote to after the mid-terms?

"The Dems could've released the info earlier, during the investigation by the FBI, but no...they held onto the allegations to start up a whole new investigation, in the hopes that the mid-terms might happen, and/or the populous becomes jaded with the process and just wants BK to go away."

Is that what you're suggesting? That the Dems are playing dirty pool?

I was replying to a suggestion in another post, as such the post you quoted of mine was not suggesting that.

With that clarification, "Are you suggesting the Dems are playing around and manipulating when information is being released to delay the vote to after the mid-terms," That is the position of numerous people commentators and seems like a reasonable position.

There are additional explanations, the most obvious being that feinstein did not find the claim credible.
 
So Much For Stealing Second

“New Year's Eve 1984 I will never forget. I was 15. As the ball dropped, I leaned over to hug a friend and she met me instead with an overwhelming kiss. As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next 'move' as if it were a chess game.

“With the 'Top Gun' slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my mark.

“Our groping ended soon and while no relationship ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn't really know what she was doing.”

-- Cory "Spartacus" Booker (The Stanford Daily 1992)
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I really haven't kept up. I'm sure this has been addressed ad nauseam, but since it was referred to recently:

In 2001, when Kavanaugh thought it would hurt his career if he was a current member of the Federalist Society, he made a point of saying he had resigned (when seeking a correction on what he called a media "whopper"). In 2018, when he realized membership wouldn't hurt his career at all, he repeated that very "whopper" on his Senate Judiciary questionnaire - the one he had so fastidiously disowned. When the discrepancy came to light, a source close to him acknowledged but downplayed that gap in membership.

It's the phony integrity that gets me. Why is it so freakin' hard to get the story straight? I don't mind that federal judges have had federal careers and may have written controversial opinions under this or that president. I'm not easily scandalized. I don't have any "gotcha" wish to destroy the man. But when it comes to judges, maybe I do have more of an idealistic streak, or maybe I just expect them to be clever enough not to lie on a job application.

An another thing: An old GF saying, "This is not the Brett Kavanaugh I knew" does not "categorically" deny the possibility that he sometimes behaved aggressively with girls, or sometimes drank heavily, or both at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Latest:

The woman who has accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault has told the Senate Judiciary Committee, in an apparent bid to jump-start negotiations, that she “would be prepared to testify next week,” so long as senators offer “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety,” according to an email her lawyers sent to committee staff members.

In the email, obtained by The New York Times, the lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford said that testifying Monday — the timetable Republicans have set for a hearing — “is not possible and the Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event.” The lawyer reiterated that it is Dr. Blasey’s “strong preference” that “a full investigation” occur before her testimony — wording that stopped short of demanding an F.B.I. probe and suggested she is open to testifying without one.

...

In the email, addressed to top Republican and Democratic aides on the committee, the lawyer, Debra Katz, wrote that she would like to set up a call later on Thursday to “discuss the conditions” under which Dr. Blasey would be prepared to testify.

“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email said. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

Linky.
 
Are you suggesting the Dems are playing around and manipulating when information is being released to delay the vote to after the mid-terms?

"The Dems could've released the info earlier, during the investigation by the FBI, but no...they held onto the allegations to start up a whole new investigation, in the hopes that the mid-terms might happen, and/or the populous becomes jaded with the process and just wants BK to go away."

Is that what you're suggesting? That the Dems are playing dirty pool?

I certainly lean that way. This is not to claim the Republicans aren’t good at it also.
 

Grassley's offer

"We’re going to continue to try to hear from Dr. Ford in any format she's comfortable w open session/closed session/private staff interviews/public staff interviews bc her information is very important. We’ve provided an opportunity for her to put her story fwd on Monday."
 
I was replying to a suggestion in another post, as such the post you quoted of mine was not suggesting that.

With that clarification, "Are you suggesting the Dems are playing around and manipulating when information is being released to delay the vote to after the mid-terms," That is the position of numerous people commentators and seems like a reasonable position.

There are additional explanations, the most obvious being that feinstein did not find the claim credible.
Did you have to learn how to construct such fabulous evasions, or does it just come naturally?
 
Did you have to learn how to construct such fabulous evasions, or does it just come naturally?

false dichotomy.

that is not actually a fabulous evasions, not at all, not in the slightest bit.

I said it was a reasonable position.

/must remember to use smaller words, using bigger words tends to trigger the rudeness in some folks.
 
Are you suggesting the Dems are playing around and manipulating when information is being released to delay the vote to after the mid-terms?

"The Dems could've released the info earlier, during the investigation by the FBI, but no...they held onto the allegations to start up a whole new investigation, in the hopes that the mid-terms might happen, and/or the populous becomes jaded with the process and just wants BK to go away."

Is that what you're suggesting? That the Dems are playing dirty pool?
This is not what apparently happened.

My understanding is the letter went to Feinstein with the request the sender remain anonymous. Feinstein in her old fashioned POV about these matters wasn't going to release the letter at all. Someone leaked the letter, most likely because they thought Feinstein's decision was wrong. When that happened, Ford came forward not wanting the story to be told with errors.

Of course this hasn't stopped McConnell from claiming the CT TBD believes, shifting the wrongdoing blame to the Democrats instead of the accused attempted rapist where it belongs.
 
Last edited:
...It's the phony integrity that gets me. ...
Me too, he obviously lies when it is to his benefit (like all Ten Commandment believers it would appear). And there was that illegal/unethical leaking of stuff from the Ken Starr investigation to the press to hurt Clinton.
 
false dichotomy.
You're right. It's probably a combination of the two.

that is not actually a fabulous evasions, not at all, not in the slightest bit.

I said it was a reasonable position.
I've noticed that you manage to avoid making claims of your own by putting things in a passive voice.

/must remember to use smaller words, using bigger words tends to trigger the rudeness in some folks.
Instead of saying, "Yes," you say, "That is the position of numerous commentators and seems like a reasonable position. " That's a 25-syllable response that does not answer the question, "Is it your position?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom