New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
Er, this isn't about investigating a crime, but extending a background check due to new allegations.
Click to expand...


Of which there now appear to be four... four separate women claiming that Kavanaugh either sexually assaulted them or attempted to rape them.

This often happens with historical sexual assault allegations, be they school teacher, students or priests and altar boys; all it takes is just one victim/survivor to pluck up the courage to tell their story, and it empowers other victims/survivors to come forward.

He said/she said might be a case of 50/50 who's lying, but he said/they said is a whole different ball game.
 
phiwum said:
Er, this isn't about investigating a crime, but extending a background check due to new allegations.
Click to expand...

It's absurd to think that a background check merely consists of a criminal record, as anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows well. Behavior, unexplained wealth, potential foreign contacts, unexplained wealth, possible drug issues, unexplained wealth, a habit of lying to investigators or under oath, potential conflicts of interest, unexplained wealth...

several women coming forward...

No, wait.

Several groups of people recalling him as a sex harrasser and abuser at different points in his life is definitely something that should have shown up.
And it certainly would have had he been the most touroughly vetted nominee in history, or whatever nonsense he said to kiss Dolt 45's behind. If it didn't then the investigation wasn't thorough enough and should be added to. If it was discovered, then the GOP are, yet again, probing to be the party that is unconcerned with sexual assault.

Actually, I think the investigation was poor *and* they don't care about sexual assault, but it's gotta be at least one of the two at this point.

ETA: Investigations are, literally, what the FBI does - it's the "I" in "FBI"
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It's not the FBI's job to investigate. That's what local law enforcement is for.

It's the FBI's job to do a background check. Which they did. And guess what? That background check found zero criminal record.
Click to expand...
Very insightful. Too bad its completely incorrect.

The FBI investigates. This includes investigating things that may or may not be a crime.
 
Segnosaur said:
As has been explained multiple times.... the release was delayed because the witness wanted anonymity. Of course now that she's come forward she has been subject to harassment
Click to expand...

....and death threats, to the point that she and her family have been forced to move out of their home and into hiding.

Segnosaur said:
...so her fears were warranted.
Click to expand...

absolutely.
 
theprestige said:
It's not the FBI's job to investigate. That's what local law enforcement is for.

It's the FBI's job to do a background check. Which they did. And guess what? That background check found zero criminal record.

Now someone is asking the FBI to investigate a crime she hasn't even asked her actual police department with actual jurisdiction to investigate. And somehow this is supposed to reflect badly on Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

I thought you were one of those who had worked for the government in a past career that would have required a security clearance. Surely you know people who have gone through a background check. Did logger steal your login?
 
River said:
Let the FBI make up their own mind whether or not to investigate.
Click to expand...

Can you see how this might be a bad idea? Letting the FBI decide whether or not they want to investigate judicial nominees, or claims of 30-year-old local crimes?
 
Segnosaur said:
In case it hasn't sunk in after the last few times its been mentioned...

Its not the democrats who have a problem with the FBI investigating. Or with multiple witnesses testifying. Its the republicans.

Why exactly is that concept so hard for you to understand?


As has been explained multiple times.... the release was delayed because the witness wanted anonymity. Of course now that she's come forward she has been subject to harassment, so her fears were warranted.

Why is that concept so hard for you to understand?

You're right... First of all, the president should pick people who, you know, don't have a sketchy background.

Then, the people controlling the nomination (which, you know, is the republicans) should actually make sure the person is qualified and doesn't have any significant issues. Such as, you know, sexual assault.

And once again, why did nobody make any such accusations against Gorsuch? After all, he's a right-winger who will probably try to remove women's rights/gay rights. So why didn't we see someone come around and accuse him of sexual misconduct? Why is only Kavanaugh accused?

Most likely scenario: Kavanaugh IS dirty.

So please, tell us: Why was Kavanaugh accused but not Gorsuch?


Republicans want a potential rapist sitting on the supreme court, passing judgement over what women can do with their bodies.

Is that a good precedent? You seem to be quite happy with it.
Click to expand...

This is why Trump got elected, and why Kavanaugh will be approved. Because, sure just as democrats guessed -- repubs want to put up a scotus that is a "potential rapist" <<< guilty before proven innocent? There were allegations of rape? Go on...
 
carlitos said:
Can you see how this might be a bad idea? Letting the FBI decide whether or not they want to investigate judicial nominees, or claims of 30-year-old local crimes?
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea if there were some corroboration of her claims. Based on what I've seen to date, it's ridiculous.
 
River said:
This is why Trump got elected, and why Kavanaugh will be approved. Because, sure just as democrats guessed -- repubs want to put up a scotus that is a "potential rapist" <<< guilty before proven innocent? There were allegations of rape? Go on...
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought you were in favor of investigating?
 
River said:
Not a bad idea if there were some corroboration of her claims. Based on what I've seen to date, it's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's not a bad idea to let the FBI decide for themselves whether to investigate 30 year old crimes or judicial nominees "IF" there is corroboration of claims? I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

I believe that the FBI should act at the direction of the executive branch, not based on their own whims to investigate people.
 
Segnosaur said:
And once again, why did nobody make any such accusations against Gorsuch? After all, he's a right-winger who will probably try to remove women's rights/gay rights. So why didn't we see someone come around and accuse him of sexual misconduct? Why is only Kavanaugh accused?

Most likely scenario: Kavanaugh IS dirty.

So please, tell us: Why was Kavanaugh accused but not Gorsuch?
Click to expand...
That actually plays into the narrative, since when Gorsuch was seated it was nowhere near the mid-terms or an upcoming POTUS election, so the dems had no real hope of stalling the proceedings by bringing forth allegations against him. If the supposed reason now is to hold it off until after the election, they at least have a better chance time wise. Given the advancing trickle of accusers, they'd better vote before the dam breaks.
 
carlitos said:
It's not a bad idea to let the FBI decide for themselves whether to investigate 30 year old crimes or judicial nominees "IF" there is corroboration of claims? I'm afraid that I don't understand your point.

I believe that the FBI should act at the direction of the executive branch, not based on their own whims to investigate people.
Click to expand...

The whole point is: She never reported it to local police much less the FBI. If she makes such a report to the FBI, or her local police and they deem it worthy of an investigation based on her story then so be it. If they don't so be it.

They don't need presidential instructions to investigate actual crimes.
 
Stacko said:
This seems like the exact blind spot a group of people pretending to be sexually repressed in order to force it onto everyone else would have. It's not the type of thing they can comfortably talk about.
Click to expand...

I was thinking it was an ability to look at sexual assault as
something well bred and well educated white men get to do.

Since they (the Federalist Society or their ilk) do not see aggressing on a
drunk female as a crime its business as usual.


Where are the Republican women to speak out against this particular
nominee?

How does CNN pick their "representatives" from a particular group?
For example Trump Supporters or Republican Women.
 
sylvan8798 said:
So please, tell us: Why was Kavanaugh accused but not Gorsuch?
Click to expand...
That actually plays into the narrative, since when Gorsuch was seated it was nowhere near the mid-terms or an upcoming POTUS election, so the dems had no real hope of stalling the proceedings by bringing forth allegations against him.
Click to expand...
Errr... not really. The theory that Kavanaugh was accused only because it was closer to mid terms has some problems:

1) It would need some sort of coordinated effort by everyone on the political left. Since (according to River) its soooo easy to cause problems, then anyone could launch an accusation at any time. Some random left-winger wants some fame? Just accuse Gorsuch

2) Nobody knew (ahead of time) just how many supreme court picks Trump would make, nor when they would happen. If it were some sort of conspiracy by people on the left to say "lets hold off on making these allegations until we can maximize impact" means they'd never be able to make them.

3) Initial mention of the assault happened years ago (when the woman talked to her therapist). Last time I checked, people can't really see into the future. Do the democrats have an army of pretend victims who have given false information to their therapists, on the chance that SOMEONE can tie it to a supreme court nominee?
 
River said:
The whole point is: She never reported it to local police much less the FBI. If she makes such a report to the FBI, or her local police and they deem it worthy of an investigation based on her story then so be it. If they don't so be it.
Click to expand...
In case you didn't know (which isn't surprising), roughly 2/3s of sexual assaults are never reported to the police. (Given the fact that she was an underage girl at a party involving alcohol, its likely she was would have been scared to talk at the time.)
 
River said:
The whole point is: She never reported it to local police much less the FBI. If she makes such a report to the FBI, or her local police and they deem it worthy of an investigation based on her story then so be it. If they don't so be it.

They don't need presidential instructions to investigate actual crimes.
Click to expand...

Non-crimes are also important in a background check.

Also, the man is not being sentenced, he is seeking the highest position in his profession. As Mr. Noah put it, one of the ten most powerful people in our country. The burden of proof is much lower than that in a criminal or civil case.

You do get that he could be denied this job if he had just written an article that enough senators found objectionable. Even if that article were just on the third amendment.

Demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this process is frankly absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom