New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

The Big Dog said:
This is of course assuming it is true. TBD did not provide a reference for the claim that "agents can interview anyone", and we have seen it before where the white house makes a claim in public but they do just the opposite in private. We've seen them claim it would be a proper investigation before, only to find out that certain people aren't going to be interviewed and certain claims won't be followed up on.
Click to expand...
forgot how many people don't have access to google around here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html
Click to expand...
Of course I have google. But not every search will turn up the relevant article, nor will there be anything to indicate that "this is new information" rather than "this is a rehash of previous claims".

ETA: Plus, the NY Times is behind a paywall that not everyone can access.
 
The Big Dog said:
:rolleyes:

forgot how many people don't have access to google around here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html
Click to expand...



The White House has authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week, two people briefed on the matter said on Monday.
Click to expand...

"Two people briefed" is the source. Odd that you'll accept anonymous sources this time around.

I hope that this is true, and it's nice that you posted a link.

But - this is not the first time people in the White House have said such a thing, only to be contradicted by other people in the White House.

Then there is this from the NY Times article you linked to:

The F.B.I. should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden after an event celebrating a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. “But they should also be guided, and I’m being guided, by what the senators are looking for.”
Click to expand...

Which is it? The second clause of the sentence appears to contradict the first clause. They should interview anyone they want, or they should follow the guidance of the Senators? What happens if the Senate guidance falls along the lines of "Don't interview this person" or "don't ask about this"?

And I know this sounds a bit paranoid, but this is precisely the sort of guidance that Kellyanne Conway was providing a few days ago.
 
Well, if there is nothing to find, they are supposed to look everywhere.
If it seems like there is dirt, they will need guidance to ignore that.
 
The Big Dog said:
:rolleyes:

forgot how many people don't have access to google around here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html
Click to expand...

Thank you!

WASHINGTON — The White House has authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week, two people briefed on the matter said on Monday.

The new directive came in the past 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau’s investigation into President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
 
crescent said:
And I know this sounds a bit paranoid, but this is precisely the sort of guidance that Kellyanne Conway was providing a few days ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you're just being "duly skeptical", not paranoid. I do trust the NYT to not spread disinformation on behalf of Trump on this, I guess. I think we should probably just have "faith" that the journalists wouldn't have said "The White House has authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week..." if they weren't fairly confident it's legit.
 
Senator Shut Up is already declaring the FBI investigation to be a farce, because of course.

they don't care, they just want to delay this thinking they can run out the clock.

Ford and the rest are just useful idiots.
 
Professor Charles Ludington, a class-mate of Kavanaugh's, has said publicly that Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking, and described him as "belligerent and aggressive when drunk".

BBC

He expects to speak to the FBI about this matter.

No sane system would operate like this. Politically appointed judges: what sort of crazy idea is that?
 
The Big Dog said:
Here is a devastating point by point analysis of ford's meandering story, all shaped by her cadre of lawyers supplied by the Dems;

at least 12 major categories of inconsistency.

By the way? did she ever turn over the notes of her alleged bull sessions with her therapists? It looks like she has refused to.
Click to expand...

Have you put together a list of outright lies by Kavanaugh? I mean, you could tag on the inconsistencies too, just to be fair.
 
MikeG said:
Professor Charles Ludington, a class-mate of Kavanaugh's, has said publicly that Kavanaugh lied under oath about his drinking, and described him as "belligerent and aggressive when drunk".

BBC

He expects to speak to the FBI about this matter.

No sane system would operate like this. Politically appointed judges: what sort of crazy idea is that?
Click to expand...

You mean Chad Ludington? yes, Chad has been telling that story for quite sometime.

No one really cares about Chad and his story
 
MikeG said:
Politically appointed judges: what sort of crazy idea is that?
Click to expand...

A necessary one in a world where nothing is apolitical.

I'm not trying to be funny, snarky, or dismissive but if nothing in discourse on a social level is outside of our normal political discourse, any and everything is political.
 
JoeMorgue said:
A necessary one in a world where nothing is apolitical.

I'm not trying to be funny, snarky, or dismissive but if nothing in discourse on a social level is outside of our normal political discourse, any and everything is political.
Click to expand...

And yet, the rest of the world does it differently.
 
The Big Dog said:
You mean Chad Ludington? yes, Chad has been telling that story for quite sometime.

No one really cares about Chad and his story
Click to expand...

I have noticed an interesting tactic.

Certain folks, particularly on the right wing, when confronted with testimony or facts that are actually quite damaging to a position they hold will respond with "Nobody cares about that".

For one thing, it's quite clearly a false statement. Without devolving to the deepest chambers of equivocation you can't torture the words to resemble truth. It is especially absurd because it is almost always said in the context of people who DO care about that fact discussing it. So "No one" must be some very bizarre hyperbolic construction to even approach having any meaning whatsoever.

Although when confronted, they tend to pretend that they meant some more particular group doesn't care and that the designation is somehow obvious. But even then either the group in question is not particularly relevant or their not caring is not particularly evidenced or a reasonable thing to infer.

But of course, all this sidesteps the issue that whether any particular group cares about a fact is not a measure in any way of whether that fact is true and what that truth tells us about the larger issue it relates to.

"Nobody cares about X" is just this massive ball of combined fallacies that people (At this moment in history supporters of the current GOP in the executive and legislative branches) throw at things in lieu of any meaningful response or argument. An attempt at dismissal with nothing resembling any reasonable grounds.

It is like a bright red flag proclaiming "I don't give a flying **** about what's true".
 
Cavemonster said:
I have noticed an interesting tactic.

Certain folks, particularly on the right wing, when confronted with testimony or facts that are actually quite damaging to a position they hold will respond with "Nobody cares about that".

For one thing, it's quite clearly a false statement. Without devolving to the deepest chambers of equivocation you can't torture the words to resemble truth. It is especially absurd because it is almost always said in the context of people who DO care about that fact discussing it. So "No one" must be some very bizarre hyperbolic construction to even approach having any meaning whatsoever.

Although when confronted, they tend to pretend that they meant some more particular group doesn't care and that the designation is somehow obvious. But even then either the group in question is not particularly relevant or their not caring is not particularly evidenced or a reasonable thing to infer.

But of course, all this sidesteps the issue that whether any particular group cares about a fact is not a measure in any way of whether that fact is true and what that truth tells us about the larger issue it relates to.

"Nobody cares about X" is just this massive ball of combined fallacies that people (At this moment in history supporters of the current GOP in the executive and legislative branches) throw at things in lieu of any meaningful response or argument. An attempt at dismissal with nothing resembling any reasonable grounds.

It is like a bright red flag proclaiming "I don't give a flying **** about what's true".
Click to expand...

Oh I mentioned Chad and his tale that Brett was a mean drunk in college already. Why does anyone give any credence to what Chad says? Chad wants to talk to the FBI, well they do not appear to be too interested in talking to Chad.

Chad blames Brett for starting a fight, but Brett wasn't arrested, Chad's buddy was.

and so it goes. Go ahead and believe Chad, he sounds like a fun drinking buddy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom