New SCOTUS Judge

[Segnosaur]

The fact that Feinstein sat on it for two months instead of, you know investigating, should also raise some red flags.

And once again.....

The victim said they wanted to remain anonymous. Even her lawyer sais that Feinstein handled it appropriately.

The only ones who are complaining seem to be the ones who think sexual assault is A-Ok.

 

[Stacyhs]

There are a few problems with your theories. Mostly that not all the alleged witnesses were "in" on the alleged actions. One was a "friend" that was there. This is her released statement.



These alleged witnesses should also be called in to testify under oath, as should the accuser. That is how this should proceed. FBI investigation based on purely this letter/memory? We shall see. I doubt it will happen, and if it does nothing new will come to light. The way this was handled and brought out at the last minute does not speak well of its contents either.

Lets see what happens. I think it's a circus.

Ford wants witnesses called but the Republicans denied her request.

 

[Minoosh]

On the low...this is not the only time they've done something like this (like Kavanaugh!). It's one of the major problems with CNN's reporting, that you just can't trust these "republican voters" panels to be just everyday people, rather than party operatives.

(I haven't personally heard of them doing the same with democrats, but that could easily just be the results of my own bias, and those of people I talk to/follow/etc.)

I'm not - hope I'm not - just offering an excuse, but I've had to round up conservative participants before. It was hard to find anyone willing who wasn't some kind of party operative or else too obviously delusional. I went with a semi-delusional guy and a woman who'd run for City Council who was not totally obnoxious. That's about the best I could do. A friend of mine curating a blog site was asked to put run more conservative blogs, but a lot of those people wanted to remain anonymous.

I didn't see the segment, but CNN doesn't have to act like it has something to hide. Just say they are involved in the party and if necessary say you reached out to others. I really doubt they were trying to discredit themselves.

 

[LSSBB]

The fact that Feinstein sat on it for two months instead of, you know investigating, should also raise some red flags.

I think she's a political example of the Peter Principle.

 

[Segnosaur]

These alleged witnesses should also be called in to testify under oath, as should the accuser.

Ford wants witnesses called but the Republicans denied her request.

There does seem to be a pattern among River's posts.

They keep talking about things that SHOULD be done (let the FBI investigate, let witnesses testify under oath, etc.) but then they ignore the fact that its the republicans who are preventing these things from happening.

 

[Matthew Best]

Funny how these accusations only surface right as the vote is about to happen, just in time to delay it.

Well, what do you think is the plan here? To keep on delaying until November? Or 2020? That seems like a bit of a stretch, since Ford only wanted a few days to fix a date to testify, and an FBI investigation could have been done in those days. If it were already November, this strategy might be plausible, but not two months before that.

 

[LSSBB]

Well, what do you think is the plan here? To keep on delaying until November? Or 2020? That seems like a bit of a stretch, since Ford only wanted a few days to fix a date to testify, and an FBI investigation could have been done in those days. If it were already November, this strategy might be plausible, but not two months before that.

Ask Merrick Garland.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

The victim said they wanted to remain anonymous.

Yeah, that's why she lawyered up, took a lie detector test, and then told blabbermouth Feinstein and The Washington Post all about it -- because she wanted to remain anonymous.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that Feinstein sat on it for two months instead of, you know investigating, should also raise some red flags.

Uh-huh. What does that have to do with whether he's guilty? Shouldn't we, you know, look into this to make sure we're not electing a creep to SCOTUS?

 

[River]

Ford wants witnesses called but the Republicans denied her request.

This is where myself and the republican stance part ways then. I also think if the FBI wants they should start an investigation. However, I do not think this should delay the hearings.

 

[Belz...]

This is where myself and the republican stance part ways then. I also think if the FBI wants they should start an investigation. However, I do not think this should delay the hearings.

So if he gets confirmed in the middle of the investigation, and then found to be probably guilty, just impeach him and confirm a different judge? Don't you think that this is a bit of a waste of ressources?

 

[Segnosaur]

Ford wants witnesses called but the Republicans denied her request.

This is where myself and the republican stance part ways then. I also think if the FBI wants they should start an investigation.

And if the White house and republicans won't let them?

However, I do not think this should delay the hearings.

So let me get this straight...

The republicans can do anything they want... force a vote on Kavanaugh without an investigation (one that could easily be finished long before any confirmation votes), deliberately avoid calling witnesses....

And your response is "Sure just let republicans do whatever they want".

How exactly are you "parting ways" with the republicans, if your your entire response is "Let the republicans do whatever they want"? Sounds to me like your're HAPPY they are going to have a potential rapist appointed to the supreme court. No "Parting of the ways" at all.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, that's why she lawyered up, took a lie detector test, and then told blabbermouth Feinstein and The Washington Post all about it -- because she wanted to remain anonymous.

You've got it backwards. She sent the letter to Feinstein in July.

In early August, when Ford was still deciding whether or not to come forward, she took a polygraph test on the advice of her lawyer.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/20...ling-the-truth-but-dont-trust-polygraph-tests

She took the polygraph test to help support her credibility because she was afraid of exactly what we've seen happen.

 

[Imhotep]

When both parties do it, but with different technicalities, it becomes about the technicalities. Whichever technicality my party embraced is the right one, the other is disgusting partisan politics.

If both parties do it in an identical manner, well... raising the "you did it too" argument is valid if you are the one raising it and "tu quoque" or "two wrongs" if it's them.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is where myself and the republican stance part ways then. I also think if the FBI wants they should start an investigation. However, I do not think this should delay the hearings.

So your stance is to rush through this confirmation because they can always spend time and money later trying to fix it?

Yep, don't bother to get the oil in your car changed or checked. You can always buy a new engine later if it seizes up.

 

[River]

So if he gets confirmed in the middle of the investigation, and then found to be probably guilty, just impeach him and confirm a different judge? Don't you think that this is a bit of a waste of ressources?

I said let them all testify under oath. If they testified the same as has been reported, it is not a waste of time and that is where it would end. Five alleged witnesses that were alleged to be somewhere which all of them denied, except for the person telling the story. Including the "friend" that was not in the room. It's a circus.

I hope at some point some bipartisan regulations can be made so that these kind of last minute fiascos stop interrupting the peoples government (its supposed to be ours right, the people? not bipartisan entities fighting each other) and delaying in what I feel is looking more and more like a political hit.

 

[River]

So your stance is to rush through this confirmation because they can always spend time and money later trying to fix it?

Yep, don't bother to get the oil in your car changed or checked. You can always buy a new engine later if it seizes up.

Do you have a problem with them all testifying under oath? Do you have a problem with the FBI making up it's own mind about whether to investigate?

So you disagree about the timing. As do I about the timing of its release. This looks like a political game being played out. Not how appointments should go IMHO. The precedent this sets is that anyone anywhere can make up a story that all alleged witnesses disagree with the account, and we can hold up a scotus appointment all based on that one persons memory or account with absolutely nothing else. All done at the last minute, as if to delay the hearing on purpose. Great precedent to set.... NOT

 

[Belz...]

I said let them all testify under oath. If they testified the same as has been reported, it is not a waste of time and that is where it would end.

Which is to say, don't investigate. If you do, ignore the findings.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'd rather the FBI interview them prior to their testimony. Like we do in most situations. That gives the advocates facts they can refer to during their testimony so that they can ask meaningful questions. Like: Are you a scorned woman?

 

[River]

Which is to say, don't investigate. If you do, ignore the findings.

Not at all. What I've said exactly to be clear is: Let the FBI make up their own mind whether or not to investigate. It should not delay the hearings. Have the accuser and alleged witnesses to testify under oath. If they testify as it was reported -- there is nothing left to investigate IMHO.

Do you feel like those 5 people are lying and the one accuser is telling the truth? All of them are mistaken? What's your opinion?