New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
What a stupid hill to die on. They really have no better candidates? Everyone else on the list has committed more easily proven sexual assaults?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
A "potential rapist" doesn't seem all that bad when you consider we recently had a "de facto rapist" as President:
Click to expand...

'Recently'? We've had three presidents since Clinton, and two of them were two-termers. Is 18 years recent? Because the lack of recency of the Kavanaugh alleged assault has been cited as reason to ignore it. What is the definition of 'recent'? Or is it relative based on political party?
 
River said:
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
Click to expand...

I want them all to testify under oath, including any witnesses they wish to present. Has the FBI said they don't want to investigate? Not that I'm aware of.
 
It doesn't matter how many people accuse him, how many witnesses corroborate it, or what evidence come to light.

They are determined to confirm him at any cost because they see the writing on the wall and this is their only shot
 
TragicMonkey said:
'Recently'? We've had three presidents since Clinton, and two of them were two-termers. Is 18 years recent? Because the lack of recency of the Kavanaugh alleged assault has been cited as reason to ignore it. What is the definition of 'recent'? Or is it relative based on political party?
Click to expand...

I think a snappier response to the person you quoted is "That's ok, he'll be back in the office on Thursday I hear."
 
Preview from Avenatti:

Warning: My client re Kavanaugh has previously done work within the State Dept, U.S. Mint, & DOJ. She has been granted multiple security clearances in the past including Public Trust & Secret. The GOP and others better be very careful in trying to suggest that she is not credible
Click to expand...

Linky.

Interesting. So when does her mask of anonymity fall away? Far be it from me to advise you on dramaturgy, but inquiring people deserve to know.
Click to expand...
Only when my client is ready, we have our ducks in a row, and her security is in place.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
River said:
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.
....
Click to expand...

As noted repeatedly above, this is not a criminal investigation. The FBI cannot conduct a background investigation unless it is directed to do so by the President, something that is a routine procedure for all high-level nominees. Kavanaugh has already been through at least two FBI background checks before these allegations came to light. The reasonable thing to do would be to direct the FBI to investigate these new allegations, but the Repubs don't want that. Who knows what it might reveal? What's most surprising is that Kavanaugh himself isn't demanding it: "A thorough investigation will clear my good name, and I insist on it."
 
Stacyhs said:
I want them all to testify under oath, including any witnesses they wish to present. Has the FBI said they don't want to investigate? Not that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The_Animus said:
It doesn't matter how many people accuse him, how many witnesses corroborate it, or what evidence come to light.

They are determined to confirm him at any cost because they see the writing on the wall and this is their only shot
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Odds are good they'll keep the Senate. Not overwhelming, but good.
 
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...
Er, this isn't about investigating a crime, but extending a background check due to new allegations.
 
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...

You refuse to understand what the FBI does. When the FBI conducts a background check, they are examining anything that could bear on a candidate's fitness for office. A check for a security clearance might go all the way back to interviewing high school teachers about the candidate's attitudes, behaviors and beliefs. One common red flag would be credit problems, which would not be a crime but could indicate vulnerability to temptation or manipulation. An FBI background check examines everything that would affect the candidate's suitability for the job, and allegations of sexual assault would certainly be part of it.
 
River said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?

So you disagree about the timing. As do I about the timing of its release.
Click to expand...
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?
This looks like a political game being played out. Not how appointments should go IMHO.
Click to expand...
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.
The precedent this sets is that anyone anywhere can make up a story that all alleged witnesses disagree with the account...
Click to expand...
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?

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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom