The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: SirLinksALot on September 21, 2018, 02:28:00 pm
-
SOURCE: POWERLINE
URL: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/fords-ridiculous-demands.php (https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/fords-ridiculous-demands.php)
by PAUL MIRENGOFF
Citing “sources,†Fox News’ Shannon Bream reports on the demands Christine Blasey Ford and her legal team are making as a condition for her testifying about her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh:
Ford team wants NO questions from lawyers, only Qs from Committee members, #Kavanaugh cannot be in the room, Kavanaugh must testify FIRST – more to come …
These demands are absurd.
1. No questions from lawyers? I guess Ford wants to be able to claim she’s being persecuted by an all-white-male panel. She doesn’t want a woman to examine her, which I imagine is what the Republicans have in mind.
But effective cross-examination is the best way to get at the truth. And in-practice lawyers, not politicians who once may have practiced law, generally make the best cross-examiners.
If Ford is telling the truth she shouldn’t be afraid of lawyers. The Committee should reject this demand.
2. Kavanaugh can’t be in the room? Say what? Ford is accusing Kavanaugh of a crime. Criminal defendants aren’t booted out of the courtroom when their accusers testify. As the accused, albeit not in a criminal proceeding, the interests of justice demand that Kavanaugh be confronted with the witness against him.
3. Kavanaugh must testify first? Give me a break. The accuser always goes first, whether in a criminal or a civil proceeding. How else can the accused defend himself against what’s actually being alleged?
I hope that the swing GOP Senators — e.g. Flake and Collins — will see the absurdity of Ford’s demands, so that Chairman Grassley confidently can reject them outright. If he does, there’s a good chance Ford will back down. If she doesn’t, the Committee can vote immediately.
-
3. Kavanaugh must testify first? Give me a break. The accuser always goes first, whether in a criminal or a civil proceeding. How else can the accused defend himself against what’s actually being alleged?
She wants Judge Kavanaugh to go first so she and her lawyer can craft their answers to counter anything he says.
-
The chutzpah of the accuser telling the US Congress when and how to question her. The world is insane.
-
One other thing. The letter she wrote accusing K would be released in it's entirety prior to any hearing.
-
IMO, just like the demand that the FBI conduct the investigation (which they knew wouldn't happen), these new demands are being made just to manufacture an excuse as to why she won't testify.
-
IMO, just like the demand that the FBI conduct the investigation (which they knew wouldn't happen), these new demands are being made just to manufacture an excuse as to why she won't testify.
It took the FBI 3 days to invesatigate Anta Hills charges. I have no problem with a 3 or 5 day delay.
-
The chutzpah of the accuser telling the US Congress when and how to question her. The world is insane.
If they allow that, they are all insane!
-
It took the FBI 3 days to invesatigate Anta Hills charges. I have no problem with a 3 or 5 day delay.
NO! No more delays!
-
IMO, just like the demand that the FBI conduct the investigation (which they knew wouldn't happen), these new demands are being made just to manufacture an excuse as to why she won't testify.
They need time to drum up new reasons to delay the vote. No sale.
-
The chutzpah of the accuser telling the US Congress when and how to question her. The world is insane.
But, that's part of why all the hysterics from the left - they really do think they are in charge and are horrified by any show of resistance from the right.
-
It took the FBI 3 days to invesatigate Anta Hills charges. I have no problem with a 3 or 5 day delay.
Bull. Just going by "the seriousness of the charge" they should have voted yesterday.
-
And I want all my bottled water to be only Summit Creek chilled to exactly 60 degrees
No staff is permitted to look at me or speak to me
And I want a bowl of M&Ms with all the green ones removed
And a big fruit plate with a sampling of fruit from all over the world
I want my waiting room to be full of fresh purple and white blooming Hyacinths
And I want...
-
It took the FBI 3 days to invesatigate Anta Hills charges. I have no problem with a 3 or 5 day delay.
October 1st is when the SCOTUS session starts. We need him on there.
Otherwise it's a 4-4 court for the term, as I understand it.
-
It took the FBI 3 days to invesatigate Anta Hills charges. I have no problem with a 3 or 5 day delay.
Apples and Oranges
There is nothing substantial to investigate. The FBI would actually investigate whether or not a high-school boy groped a high-school girl at a party? Really? Is this actually a serious thing? There is nowhere to even start. Since this thing supposedly happened 36/37 years ago, it will take a lot longer than 3 days to track down an undefined 'allegation' from almost 4 decades ago that even the accuser has admitted she cannot define in detail. It is ridiculous. The whole thing is absurd.
-
And I want all my bottled water to be only Summit Creek chilled to exactly 60 degrees
No staff is permitted to look at me or speak to me
And I want a bowl of M&Ms with all the green ones removed
And a big fruit plate with a sampling of fruit from all over the world
I want my waiting room to be full of fresh purple and white blooming Hyacinths
And I want...
You'll get nothing and like it!
-
The chutzpah of the accuser telling the US Congress when and how to question her. The world is insane.
It's only insane if the Committee gives in to her.
-
It took the FBI 3 days to invesatigate Anta Hills charges. I have no problem with a 3 or 5 day delay.
Folks like you are a problem!
Thomas and Hill were both government employees when the 'alleged' assault took place.
Kavanaugh and the accuser were high school kids!
It was a State responsibility to have investigated ... If it had been reported Before 36 years had passed!
-
Apples and Oranges
There is nothing substantial to investigate. The FBI would actually investigate whether or not a high-school boy groped a high-school girl at a party? Really? Is this actually a serious thing? There is nowhere to even start. Since this thing supposedly happened 36/37 years ago, it will take a lot longer than 3 days to track down an undefined 'allegation' from almost 4 decades ago that even the accuser has admitted she cannot define in detail. It is ridiculous. The whole thing is absurd.
Exactly my point there is no there there so let the FBI come back after a few days and tell the
world nothing happened. The SC will not be ruling on anything Oct 1st. K can catch up he's a quick
study.
-
Exactly my point there is no there there so let the FBI come back after a few days and tell the
world nothing happened. The SC will not be ruling on anything Oct 1st. K can catch up he's a quick
study.
You just don't get it, do you?
How and when does one everyday citizen have any authority to dictate how the senate does it's job?
If allowed, it will become a precedent set by the Democrats and used when it suits their needs!
-
She wants Judge Kavanaugh to go first so she and her lawyer can craft their answers to counter anything he says.
Not sure how that would happen, if neither she or her lawyer is in the room to hear his testimony.
-
One other thing. The letter she wrote accusing K would be released in it's entirety prior to any hearing.
I agree, and I think it should be.
-
Apples and Oranges
There is nothing substantial to investigate. The FBI would actually investigate whether or not a high-school boy groped a high-school girl at a party? Really? Is this actually a serious thing? There is nowhere to even start. Since this thing supposedly happened 36/37 years ago, it will take a lot longer than 3 days to track down an undefined 'allegation' from almost 4 decades ago that even the accuser has admitted she cannot define in detail. It is ridiculous. The whole thing is absurd.
There is another prominent investigation of ‘nothing substantial’ right now that is entering its 15th (16th?) month.
-
It took the FBI 3 days to invesatigate Anta Hills charges. I have no problem with a 3 or 5 day delay.
I agree! And just as the FBI investigation of Anita Hill came up inconclusive, the FBI might not find anything here. But the attempt is necessary.
-
Apples and Oranges
There is nothing substantial to investigate. The FBI would actually investigate whether or not a high-school boy groped a high-school girl at a party? Really? Is this actually a serious thing? There is nowhere to even start. Since this thing supposedly happened 36/37 years ago, it will take a lot longer than 3 days to track down an undefined 'allegation' from almost 4 decades ago that even the accuser has admitted she cannot define in detail. It is ridiculous. The whole thing is absurd.
I disagree. There are putative witnesses to question, classmates of both of them. And please remember, this is not "just" groping. This is someone (according to her story) holding her down, trying to get her clothes off, and covering her mouth. Groping is someone grabbing your butt or your boob. Please know, there is a difference.
-
I disagree. There are putative witnesses to question, classmates of both of them. And please remember, this is not "just" groping. This is someone (according to her story) holding her down, trying to get her clothes off, and covering her mouth. Groping is someone grabbing your butt or your boob. Please know, there is a difference.
The bad faith here is appalling, both on the part of Blasey Ford and the Dems. The accusation was made in June, and Feinstein sat on it during the entire hearings, and never even raised it in her office interviews with Judge K. Ford has framed the matter in exactly the hysterical terms - attempted rape! attempted murder! - necessary to make the event disqualifying if true. Ford says she took a lie detector test in August at her lawyer's office: why would she have done so if, as the Dems contend, she was reluctant to come forward until Feinstein leaked the matter after the hearing was concluded? And now that the Committee has offered her the opportunity to state her case under oath, she is dithering and demanding absurd concessions such as an FBI investigation - and her justification for doing so is identical to the Dems partisan motivation to delay a vote until past the midterm elections.
Ford and the Dems are obviously conspiring to achieve the Dems' partisan ends. This is no quest for justice.
-
The bad faith here is appalling, both on the part of Blasey Ford and the Dems. The accusation was made in June, and Feinstein sat on it during the entire hearings, and never even raised it in her office interviews with Judge K. Ford has framed the matter in exactly the hysterical terms - attempted rape! attempted murder! - necessary to make the event disqualifying if true. Ford says she took a lie detector test in August at her lawyer's office: why would she have done so if, as the Dems contend, she was reluctant to come forward until Feinstein leaked the matter after the hearing was concluded? And now that the Committee has offered her the opportunity to state her case under oath, she is dithering and demanding absurd concessions such as an FBI investigation - and her justification for doing so is identical to the Dems partisan motivation to delay a vote until past the midterm elections.
Ford and the Dems are obviously conspiring to achieve the Dems' partisan ends. This is no quest for justice.
@Jazzhead, Ford told the Washington Post and Feinstein, anonymously. Feinstein could not tell anyone without outing Ford. The Washington Post finally did leak the information.
Do I wish Ford had been ready to come forward sooner? Yes! Am I angry that the Post gave the story to the Intercept? Yes. Do I blame Feinstein for not outing her constituent? No.
Do I blame Ford for not coming forward sooner? No. She was willing to let it lie, until journalists starting asking questions about it.
I agree, the bad faith on both sides is awful. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford will be free of this. An investigation might have at least given it finality, along with their testimony. The FBI could have spent three days on this, like they did with Anita Hill. Then they testify next week, and the vote is held. As it is now, both of them are smeared, and Kavanaugh probably faces impeachment.
-
@Jazzhead, Ford told the Washington Post and Feinstein, anonymously. Feinstein could not tell anyone without outing Ford. The Washington Post finally did leak the information.
Do I wish Ford had been ready to come forward sooner? Yes! Am I angry that the Post gave the story to the Intercept? Yes. Do I blame Feinstein for not outing her constituent? No.
Do I blame Ford for not coming forward sooner? No. She was willing to let it lie, until journalists starting asking questions about it.
I agree, the bad faith on both sides is awful. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford will be free of this. An investigation might have at least given it finality, along with their testimony. The FBI could have spent three days on this, like they did with Anita Hill. Then they testify next week, and the vote is held. As it is now, both of them are smeared, and Kavanaugh probably faces impeachment.
What bad faith do you see on Kavanaugh's part, @LauraTXNM ? He was unfairly blindsided by the charge, which provided no specific details as to time and place, and seeks to declare under penalty of perjury that he is innocent. The damn thing's a set up! The Republicans have nevertheless given Ford the opportunity to state her case under oath, either privately to the Committee or before the public - why is she dithering and demanding concessions other than to drag things out as the Dems want? Why should there be an FBI investigation when she's yet to say a single word under penalty of perjury (and indeed her original letter to her Congresswoman has yet to be released in its entirety)?
-
What bad faith do you see on Kavanaugh's part, @LauraTXNM ? He was unfairly blindsided by the charge, which provided no specific details as to time and place, and seeks to declare under penalty of perjury that he is innocent. The damn thing's a set up! The Republicans have nevertheless given Ford the opportunity to state her case under oath, either privately to the Committee or before the public - why is she dithering and demanding concessions other than to drag things out as the Dems want? Why should there be an FBI investigation when she's yet to say a single word under penalty of perjury (and indeed her original letter to her Congresswoman has yet to be released in its entirety)?
I meant bad faith on the part of the Dems and Reps.
And at this point, Kavanaugh will always be known as an attempted rapist and Ford as an hysterical liar.
-
I meant bad faith on the part of the Dems and Reps.
And at this point, Kavanaugh will always be known as an attempted rapist and Ford as an hysterical liar.
Not by me he won't! And apparently, I'm not alone! https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/09/21/cnn-hosts-womens-panel-kavanaugh-accusations-doesnt-go-planned/ (https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/09/21/cnn-hosts-womens-panel-kavanaugh-accusations-doesnt-go-planned/)
-
Not by me he won't! And apparently, I'm not alone! https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/09/21/cnn-hosts-womens-panel-kavanaugh-accusations-doesnt-go-planned/ (https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/09/21/cnn-hosts-womens-panel-kavanaugh-accusations-doesnt-go-planned/)
You know what disgusted me in that Republican Florida women's Panel? I understand believing Kavanaugh, and I understand thinking it happened too long ago. But at least one of them said it wasn't a problem to hold someone down and try to take her clothes off. If my son did that, I would never think was normal or okay.
-
The bad faith here is appalling, both on the part of Blasey Ford and the Dems. The accusation was made in June, and Feinstein sat on it during the entire hearings, and never even raised it in her office interviews with Judge K. Ford has framed the matter in exactly the hysterical terms - attempted rape! attempted murder! - necessary to make the event disqualifying if true. Ford says she took a lie detector test in August at her lawyer's office: why would she have done so if, as the Dems contend, she was reluctant to come forward until Feinstein leaked the matter after the hearing was concluded? And now that the Committee has offered her the opportunity to state her case under oath, she is dithering and demanding absurd concessions such as an FBI investigation - and her justification for doing so is identical to the Dems partisan motivation to delay a vote until past the midterm elections.
Ford and the Dems are obviously conspiring to achieve the Dems' partisan ends. This is no quest for justice.
Question, what happens if K is seated after the court is in session? say Oct 5th instead of Oct 1st?
-
You know what disgusted me in that Republican Florida women's Panel? I understand believing Kavanaugh, and I understand thinking it happened too long ago. But at least one of them said it wasn't a problem to hold someone down and try to take her clothes off. If my son did that, I would never think was normal or okay.
You know what disgusts me? It people like you and Karmala Harris!
Kamala Harris: ‘Reasonable Doubt’ Standard Does Not Apply to Kavanaugh; Ford’s Sex Assault Charge Does Not Need to Be Proven
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/kamala-harris-reasonable-doubt-standard-does-not-apply-to-kavanaugh-fords-sex-assault-charge-does-not-need-to-be-proven/ (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/kamala-harris-reasonable-doubt-standard-does-not-apply-to-kavanaugh-fords-sex-assault-charge-does-not-need-to-be-proven/)
-
And at this point, Kavanaugh will always be known as an attempted rapist . . . .
Only among the rabid partisans. That's why this will backfire on the Dems. Folks have a visceral reaction to perceived unfairness. Kavanaugh was blindsided by uncorroborated charges from his teenage years, following decades of honorable service and, by all indications, the living of an honorable life. His family is now on the receiving end of obscenities and threats. This is no way to encourage good people to enter public service. And this will unite Republicans and conservatives to turn out for a mid-year election like nothing else.
-
@Jazzhead, Ford told the Washington Post and Feinstein, anonymously. Feinstein could not tell anyone without outing Ford. The Washington Post finally did leak the information.
Do you know that for a fact? But if Ford gave it to the WP then she wanted it out there.
-
Only among the rabid partisans. That's why this will backfire on the Dems. Folks have a visceral reaction to perceived unfairness. Kavanaugh was blindsided by uncorroborated charges from his teenage years, following decades of honorable service and, by all indications, the living of an honorable life. His family is now on the receiving end of obscenities and threats. This is no way to encourage good people to enter public service. And this will unite Republicans and conservatives to turn out for a mid-year election like nothing else.
Agreed. And basically everything you wrote will apply equally to people who believe Ford. (I will note that Kavanaugh seems to have other issues with gambling and lying that undercut his record of sterling service. I suppose Ford might also have professional or personal issues.)
-
Only among the rabid partisans.
:thumbsup:
-
You know what disgusted me in that Republican Florida women's Panel? I understand believing Kavanaugh, and I understand thinking it happened too long ago. But at least one of them said it wasn't a problem to hold someone down and try to take her clothes off. If my son did that, I would never think was normal or okay.
Doesn't it resonate even a bit with you that there is nothing in Kavanaugh's adult life that suggests that sort of behavior? If there's one thing that's been apparent from all the #metoo cases is that rapey behavior is a pattern. Once a creep, always a creep. But there's none of that with Judge Kavanaugh. This is, in the words of Clarence Thomas, the high-tech lynching of an honorable man.
-
Do you know that for a fact? But if Ford gave it to the WP then she wanted it out there.
My understanding is, she gave both the WashPost and Feinstein the letter as an anonymous account, to be used as corroboration if other accounts came up. Naive or foolish? Possibly.
-
I will note that Kavanaugh seems to have other issues with gambling and lying that undercut his record of sterling service.
@LauraTXNM
Do you have anything to back up that assertion?
-
@Jazzhead BTW, how's your leg? I tried to PM you. I hope you're doing well!
-
@Jazzhead BTW, how's your leg? I tried to PM you. I hope you're doing well!
@LauraTXNM
My leg is getting better - thanks for asking. I'm still using a cane for stairs and curbs, but for the most part I'm back doing the things I was doing before.
-
@LauraTXNM
Do you have anything to back up that assertion?
I can go back and get sources later if you'd like, but I don't think it's anything new you haven't read. It's been commonly discussed (and argued about) whether he lied about receiving Democrats' emails about earlier judicial confirmations; and there were questions about his gambling debts. Republicans have argued this stuff isn't accurate, it Democrat's think it is. They were already considering impeachment over it. The R line has been that he's impeccable; the D line has been that he's blackmailable, etc.
-
My understanding is, she gave both the WashPost and Feinstein the letter as an anonymous account, to be used as corroboration if other accounts came up. Naive or foolish? Possibly.
I think you are incorrect, the letter was hand carried to Sen Feinstien. Sen Feinstein or someone at DOJ (surprise, surprise) then leaked it to the WP. At least that is my understand, I could be wrong.
-
And I want a puppy
And I want a pony, dyed like a rainbow
And I want a new car, like The Price is Right
And I want $100,000 in cash up front
And I want my own parking space
And I want free dental for life
And I want...
-
I can go back and get sources later if you'd like, but I don't think it's anything new you haven't read. It's been commonly discussed (and argued about) whether he lied about receiving Democrats' emails about earlier judicial confirmations; and there were questions about his gambling debts. Republicans have argued this stuff isn't accurate, it Democrat's think it is. They were already considering impeachment over it. The R line has been that he's impeccable; the D line has been that he's blackmailable, etc.
The only thing I've heard is the Rats saying he lied under oath.
-
I think you are incorrect, the letter was hand carried to Sen Feinstien. Sen Feinstein or someone at DOJ (surprise, surprise) then leaked it to the WP. At least that is my understand, I could be wrong.
Here's one article about all this: "According to the Post, Ford contacted the publication through a tip line in July when it “became clear†Kavanaugh might become President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick and contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she contacted Feinstein."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/16/17866988/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-washington-post (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/16/17866988/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-washington-post)
I think Feinstein was put in an untenable position by receiving the letter and being asked to keep it confidential.
-
The only thing I've heard is the Rats saying he lied under oath.
And remember all the stuff about the sports tickets and the debts? I haven't paid a lot of attention, but there was discussion about unsuitability and impeachment before the Ford question appeared.
-
@Jazzhead, Ford told the Washington Post and Feinstein, anonymously. Feinstein could not tell anyone without outing Ford. The Washington Post finally did leak the information.
Do I wish Ford had been ready to come forward sooner? Yes! Am I angry that the Post gave the story to the Intercept? Yes. Do I blame Feinstein for not outing her constituent? No.
Do I blame Ford for not coming forward sooner? No. She was willing to let it lie, until journalists starting asking questions about it.
I agree, the bad faith on both sides is awful. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford will be free of this. An investigation might have at least given it finality, along with their testimony. The FBI could have spent three days on this, like they did with Anita Hill. Then they testify next week, and the vote is held. As it is now, both of them are smeared, and Kavanaugh probably faces impeachment.
How does one make an accusation of a criminal event of 32 years ago stick by doing it anonymously? Especially in a congressional setting. But with that said, DiFi should have brought it up in the closed sessions, of which they had multiple times.
-
I agree! And just as the FBI investigation of Anita Hill came up inconclusive, the FBI might not find anything here. But the attempt is necessary.
Why don't some of you folks read all of the posts before beclowning yourselves?
Thomas and Hill were both government employees when the 'alleged' assault took place.
That made it a Federal investigation and appropriate!
Kavanaugh and the accuser were high school kids!
That would have been a State responsibility to investigate ... If it had been reported Before 36 years had passed!
-
Why don't some of you folks read all of the posts before beclowning yourselves?
Thomas and Hill were both government employees when the 'alleged' assault took place.
That made it a Federal investigation and appropriate!
Kavanaugh and the accuser were high school kids!
That would have been a State responsibility to investigate ... If it had been reported Before 36 years had passed!
@mrclose The investigation is background research for an applicant for a federal job. It's not about whether he was a federal employee when it happened. The FBI investigation is standard.
-
Why don't some of you folks read all of the posts before beclowning yourselves?
Thomas and Hill were both government employees when the 'alleged' assault took place.
That made it a Federal investigation and appropriate!
Kavanaugh and the accuser were high school kids!
That would have been a State responsibility to investigate ... If it had been reported Before 36 years had passed!
@mrclose
Thank you for taking the time to type that out TWICE on this thread! I guess you have to hit some people upside the head with a 2X4 to get their attention.
-
@mrclose @Bigun I can find a more right-leaning source if you'd like, but FBI is the agent of the President in cases of presidential appointees. All that's needed is for the President to request additional investigation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036)
I guess you missed this.
-
@mrclose @Bigun Here's a Fox article that states the President can request follow up investigation: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/19/fbi-will-not-launch-criminal-investigation-into-kavanaugh-allegations.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/19/fbi-will-not-launch-criminal-investigation-into-kavanaugh-allegations.html)
There's a WSJ article that has more specifics, but it's behind a paywall. I read it "grayed out": https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-the-fbi-investigate-the-kavanaugh-accusations-1537452001 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-the-fbi-investigate-the-kavanaugh-accusations-1537452001)
-
So there is overwhelming information that the President (not the Senate) can request further FBI investigation of a nominee.
-
@mrclose The investigation is background research for an applicant for a federal job. It's not about whether he was a federal employee when it happened. The FBI investigation is standard.
Kavanaugh has, through his years in public service, undergone SIX FBI background checks --- the most recent being this year.
Ms. Ford is asking for the FBI to specifically investigate her claims of sexual assault. Investigating such a claim from almost 40 years ago involving two teenagers is not the within the charter of the FBI. Not even for Ms. Ford @LauraTXNM They have no jurisdiction.
-
Kavanaugh has, through his years in public service, undergone SIX FBI background checks --- the most recent being this year.
Ms. Ford is asking for the FBI to specifically investigate her claims of sexual assault. Investigating such a claim from almost 40 years ago involving two teenagers is not the within the charter of the FBI. Not even for Ms. Ford @LauraTXNM They have no jurisdiction.
@Right_in_Virginia If you look st the numerous articles above, there is precedent, and the President absolutely can ask the FBI to do additional investigation. If Trump had asked the FBI on Tuesday, they could have taken three days like they did with Anita Hill and be finishing up right now.
-
So there is overwhelming information that the President (not the Senate) can request further FBI investigation of a nominee.
The president had better not go one inch - not a single millimeter - out of his way to accommodate this bullsh*t rat ploy. Its not deserving of another minute of his, nor the judiciary committee's, time. Enough.
-
The president had better not go one inch - not a single millimeter - out of his way to accommodate this bullsh*t rat ploy. Its not deserving of another minute of his, nor the judiciary committee's, time. Enough.
That's obviously his choice. But it is incontrovertible that the President can request further investigation, and the FBI would do it. It's false of other posters to say it isn't standard practice.
-
@Right_in_Virginia If you look st the numerous articles above, there is precedent, and the President absolutely can ask the FBI to do additional investigation. If Trump had asked the FBI on Tuesday, they could have taken three days like they did with Anita Hill and be finishing up right now.
No, no and no.
Again, Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas were not teenagers at the time of the alleged events ... they were both Federal employees at the time.
This is a bleeping BIG difference @LauraTXNM and it matters.
-
No, no and no.
Again, Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas were not teenagers at the time of the alleged events ... they were both Federal employees at the time.
This is a bleeping BIG difference @LauraTXNM and it matters.
The point I made, is that it is FACTUALLY INCORRECT to say the President can't do it, or the FBI can't do it. That is my entire point. Bye!
-
That's obviously his choice. But it is incontrovertible that the President can request further investigation, and the FBI would do it. It's false of other posters to say it isn't standard practice.
If it requires the president request additional investigating then the clear implication is it would be a non standard procedure.
-
If it requires the president request additional investigating then the clear implication is it would be a non standard procedure.
That has been done before.
-
That's obviously his choice. But it is incontrovertible that the President can request further investigation, and the FBI would do it. It's false of other posters to say it isn't standard practice.
I've got to ask this @LauraTXNM Have you a single clue as to what is happening here? Seriously, do you understand the political obstruction that is taking place?
-
That has been done before.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse @LauraTXNM and you are really pissing me off.
-
It's false of other posters to say it isn't standard practice.
What the Dems are doing to try to destroy the reputation of an honorable man, and to subject his family to abuse, sure as hell better not become "standard practice". Let this woman come forward and make her case under penalty of perjury. Until then, I see no reason for the FBI to lend credence to this obvious and shameful partisan set-up.
-
Not sure how that would happen, if neither she or her lawyer is in the room to hear his testimony.
And, how does he respond to her statements if he doesn't know what she's going to say?
-
There is another prominent investigation of ‘nothing substantial’ right now that is entering its 15th (16th?) month.
Didn't that one start in July, 2016? It's over 2 years now.
-
I disagree. There are putative witnesses to question, classmates of both of them. And please remember, this is not "just" groping. This is someone (according to her story) holding her down, trying to get her clothes off, and covering her mouth. Groping is someone grabbing your butt or your boob. Please know, there is a difference.
And...all the witnesses so far have denied even being there.
-
Didn't that one start in July, 2016? It's over 2 years now.
Yes that's right. I lost a year somehow.
-
All: unless I’m sorely mistaken, @LauraTXNM has, to her credit, honorably proclaimed that she IS a dem...just saying.
-
I agree! And just as the FBI investigation of Anita Hill came up inconclusive, the FBI might not find anything here. But the attempt is necessary.
No, ma'am it was not inconclusive - they "found no foundation" to the claims. Quite a bit different.
-
What could they possibly investigate? All the supposed witnesses say it didn't happen and Ford doesn't know where it happened or even when.
-
Despite her political bent @Axeslinger she argues her position passionately, PLUS she pizzes off @Right_in_Virginia so she earns a spot on my list. @LauraTXNM
-
What could they possibly investigate? All the supposed witnesses say it didn't happen and Ford doesn't know where it happened or even when.
:thumbsup:
-
:thumbsup:
But, but, but....#MeToo!!!!
Ha! The trump (pardon the pun) card has been played.
-
Despite her political bent @Axeslinger she argues her position passionately, PLUS she pizzes off @Right_in_Virginia so she earns a spot on my list. @LauraTXNM
@corbe
Yeah, all those assholes at every rally the libtards hold argue their position passionately...doesn’t mean they know their ass from a hole in the ground.
I agree about the RiV thing though...that part’s fun.
-
jpsb asked:
"Question, what happens if K is seated after the court is in session? say Oct 5th instead of Oct 1st?"
I'm no expert, but seems to me that...
Any cases heard between Oct 1-4 will be decided by the eight Justices seated.
As of Oct. 5th, the "9th seat vacancy" is filled, and cases head after that will be decided by 9 Justices (Kavanaugh included).
-
I agree about the RiV thing though...that part’s fun.
Now this just hurts my feelings @Axeslinger
-
(sigh)...
It's Friday, Senator Grassley's "red line" of 10.00am has past, not much news since other than rumors that the Pubbies are "negotiating" (again) for an "appearance" later in the week.
So...
Once again, I must ask:
"Can't anybody here play this game???"
-
That's obviously his choice. But it is incontrovertible that the President can request further investigation, and the FBI would do it. It's false of other posters to say it isn't standard practice.
What federal law has been violated that would provide ANY FBI jurisdiction? What exactly should the president ask them to investigate?
-
What federal law has been violated that would provide ANY FBI jurisdiction? What exactly should the president ask them to investigate?
How does one investigate a possible event with no location or date from over thirty years ago? Ridiculous.
And now the accuser is afraid to get on an airplane. The conditions will never end. Lucy moving the football again.
-
How does one investigate a possible event with no location or date from over thirty years ago? Ridiculous.
And now the accuser is afraid to get on an airplane. The conditions will never end. Lucy moving the football again.
Not again! Still!
-
@mrclose @Bigun I can find a more right-leaning source if you'd like, but FBI is the agent of the President in cases of presidential appointees. All that's needed is for the President to request additional investigation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036)
I guess you missed this.
:thumbsup:
-
But, but, but....#MeToo!!!!
I though the image below was pretty funny
(https://pics.me.me/when-you-realize-most-adults-in-the-world-still-read-32806035.png)
-
I though the image below was pretty funny
(https://pics.me.me/when-you-realize-most-adults-in-the-world-still-read-32806035.png)
@jpsb, I hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure most adults are familiar with hashtags now. wink777
-
Now you're being deliberately obtuse @LauraTXNM and you are really pissing me off.
@Right_in_Virginia I do think I understand the various forms of political obstruction happening, yes. Check out the story about the White House and Whelan, for another example.
If I make you that angry, will you block me?
-
No, ma'am it was not inconclusive - they "found no foundation" to the claims. Quite a bit different.
@Sanguine Nope, President Bush said he found it inconclusive.
-
Ta, @Axeslinger and @corbe! XOXO
-
jpsb asked:
"Question, what happens if K is seated after the court is in session? say Oct 5th instead of Oct 1st?"
I'm no expert, but seems to me that...
Any cases heard between Oct 1-4 will be decided by the eight Justices seated.
As of Oct. 5th, the "9th seat vacancy" is filled, and cases head after that will be decided by 9 Justices (Kavanaugh included).
@Fishrrman @jpsb Yes, I thought Kavanaugh would be seated as soon as confirmed (or on October 1). If he misses a few days, it doesn't mean he isn't seated until June 2019 or whenever.
-
What federal law has been violated that would provide ANY FBI jurisdiction? What exactly should the president ask them to investigate?
The President would ask the FBI for further background investigation. There is no question of jurisdiction; it falls under the FBI's role as investigators of Presidential nominees. This is all academic, of course. But people trying to say there's no jurisdiction, or it can't be done, are flat wrong.
-
@Sanguine Nope, President Bush said he found it inconclusive.
He said a lot of things, however, the FBI used the term "without foundation".
-
@jpsb, I hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure most adults are familiar with hashtags now. wink777
@CatherineofAragon @jpsb Made-me-feel-old moment: 14-y-o son gets his first bank card. His pin doesn't work. Why? Because when he and the bank manager set it, he didn't know what the pound key was.
-
I think Grassley's doing a damn fine job.
GOP declines to subpoena Kavanaugh classmate, rejects other demands
The Hill, Sep 21, 2018
Republicans said Friday that they are rejecting several requests from a woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, including that they subpoena a potential witness and make the Supreme Court nominee testify first.
[...]
Staff for Grassley said Ford’s lawyers wanted them to subpoena Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh classmate whom she has named as a witness to the alleged assault at a high school party in the early 1980s, as well as call other witnesses to testify.
Grassley is rejecting both requests, noting he can’t make subpoenaing a witness a precursor to an agreement.
“You went on television earlier this week and said Dr. Ford wants the chance to tell her story in public and under oath. This is the opportunity we have given her. We don’t need to subpoena additional witnesses to do that,†Grassley’s staff wrote.
Ford also requested that Kavanaugh testify first, something Grassley is also rejecting, according to the letter Friday.
“The accused has the right to respond to allegations that are made about him. Judge Kavanaugh cannot be expected to respond to allegations that have been made to the press,†staff for Grassley said.
The public release of the letter comes as staff for Grassley and Ford’s lawyers have been in a flurry of talks about a potential hearing next week.
The GOP chairman has given lawyers for Ford until 10 p.m. on Friday to reach an agreement.
Grassley’s staff say they have accommodated Ford on several requests including limiting the number of cameras in the room, not allowing Kavanaugh in the room with her and sharing concerns about her safety.
“Capitol Police offers more than adequate security. The Senate hosts the President, Vice President, Cabinet secretaries, heads of state, and other prominent public figures all the time with the necessary precautions,†they wrote.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407872-gop-declines-to-subpoena-kavanaugh-classmate-rejects-other-demands
-
@Fishrrman @jpsb Yes, I thought Kavanaugh would be seated as soon as confirmed (or on October 1). If he misses a few days, it doesn't mean he isn't seated until June 2019 or whenever.
He's seated October 1 or he's not seated.
-
Well, Mr. Grassley -- after having erased his first "red line" of 10.00am this morning -- now has set ANOTHER red line of 10.00pm this evening.
As I write this, about 44 minutes to go.
Mr. Grassley, will you need another eraser?
Again:
Can't anybody here play this game???
-
Right in Virginia claims:
"He's seated October 1 or he's not seated."
Provide documentation for this statement.
-
He's seated October 1 or he's not seated.
@Right_in_Virginia Thanks for the info! Then I definitely think they need to vote before October 1.
-
Meanwhile, in her Trump Tower Condo, waiting patiently by the phone.
(https://americannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-18-at-8.18.45-PM-730x480.png)
-
Lawyer wants one more day 9999hair out0000
-
Right in Virginia claims:
"He's seated October 1 or he's not seated."
Provide documentation for this statement.
Sorry @Fishrrman ... this is based on Senate rules. The delay in her testifying until next Thursday pushes the vote beyond Oct 1. The politics of midterm elections will sink a vote at this point and Kavanaugh's nomination is for all purposes be dead in the water. If the Dems take the Senate, the SC will stay an 8 body bench for the next two years.
If we retain the Senate he's nomination could be brought back to life, but it's unlikely.
-
Lawyer wants one more day 9999hair out0000
Nope ... they're pushing this vote beyond Oct 1 when the dems will shut it down because of the elections.
-
Nope ... they're pushing this vote beyond Oct 1 when the dems will shut it down because of the elections.
Good info, @Right_in_Virginia.
-
Right in Virginia wrote:
"Nope ... they're pushing this vote beyond Oct 1 when the dems will shut it down because of the elections."
Again, this makes no sense.
The Senate remains as it is today right up through election day.
They can vote ... well... whenever.
McConnell has already stated that he will keep the Senate in session to get the confirmation vote.
And... what if there wasn't a vote?
And Congress adjourns?
The Constitution itself provides the answer:
RECESS APPOINTMENT.
The president has the absolute power to do this.
Once done, it will be "out of Congress' reach", at least for a while (does the term of a recess appointment last until the NEXT Congress?).
In any case, once appointed as such, they'll have to have a vote.
It's now PAST 10.0opm.
What is the word from Mr. Grassley?
Can't anybody here play this game?
-
Meanwhile, in her Trump Tower Condo, waiting patiently by the phone.
LOL, No @cobe that would be
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/II032-WktMFK1_aGp-czJIWA5dU=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LNRMNWQYQM6MROXCYA7XRU6NWI.png)
-
@CatherineofAragon @jpsb Made-me-feel-old moment: 14-y-o son gets his first bank card. His pin doesn't work. Why? Because when he and the bank manager set it, he didn't know what the pound key was.
@LauraTXNM
Lol!
-
If # is a pound key, then what does #MeToo say?
-
The President would ask the FBI for further background investigation.
Why? They've already kicked it back once saying they won't investigate.
There is no question of jurisdiction; it falls under the FBI's role as investigators of Presidential nominees.
Actually the FBI disagrees with you.
In reality...it should have fallen under the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement where this fantasy event allegedly occurred.
This is all academic, of course. But people trying to say there's no jurisdiction, or it can't be done, are flat wrong.
Actually you're the one that is flat wrong.
Stop and think about it...this man has been vetted at least three times...possibly four I can't remember with the deepest background checks available because of where he was working and for his nomination to the Federal bench.
You're telling me that in those background checks that at times go back to your first grade teacher they didn't find this alleged incident?
C'mon now...
-
What the FBI should be investigating are the threats against a sitting federal judge and his family. Rosenweasel probably quashed that idea too.
-
Why? They've already kicked it back once saying they won't investigate.
Actually the FBI disagrees with you.
In reality...it should have fallen under the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement where this fantasy event allegedly occurred.
Actually you're the one that is flat wrong.
Stop and think about it...this man has been vetted at least three times...possibly four I can't remember with the deepest background checks available because of where he was working and for his nomination to the Federal bench.
You're telling me that in those background checks that at times go back to your first grade teacher they didn't find this alleged incident?
C'mon now...
He has been investigated by the FBI six times.
The slimy bastar*d Avenati is now claiming Kavanaugh and his buddy organized rape trains in high school. This jerk should be disbarred.
If anybody had organized rape trains or was a serial sexual predator, it would have been found out at the time.
The depths to which all Dem pols have sunk is that no Dem pol is denouncing Avenati for his ridiculous claims.
Many Pubbie pols are spineless weasels, but all Dems are scoundrels.
-
Right in Virginia wrote:
"Nope ... they're pushing this vote beyond Oct 1 when the dems will shut it down because of the elections."
Again, this makes no sense.
The Senate remains as it is today right up through election day.
They can vote ... well... whenever.
McConnell has already stated that he will keep the Senate in session to get the confirmation vote.
And... what if there wasn't a vote?
And Congress adjourns?
The Constitution itself provides the answer:
RECESS APPOINTMENT.
The president has the absolute power to do this.
Once done, it will be "out of Congress' reach", at least for a while (does the term of a recess appointment last until the NEXT Congress?).
In any case, once appointed as such, they'll have to have a vote.
It's now PAST 10.0opm.
What is the word from Mr. Grassley?
Can't anybody here play this game?
A recess appointment is a terrible idea. It basically puts him in there temporarily -- only for a bit over a year. Then we'd have to go through all this again except the Dems might control the Senate.
He has to be seated permanently during this term.
-
He has been investigated by the FBI six times.
The slimy bastar*d Avenati is now claiming Kavanaugh and his buddy organized rape trains in high school. This jerk should be disbarred.
If anybody had organized rape trains or was a serial sexual predator, it would have been found out at the time.
The depths to which all Dem pols have sunk is that no Dem pol is denouncing Avenati for his ridiculous claims.
Many Pubbie pols are spineless weasels, but all Dems are scoundrels.
Exactly!
-
The only way to stop these antics, at least for Senate conformations, is to require sworn affidavits before they will be accepted by a committee.
-
Major Bill wrote:
"A recess appointment is a terrible idea. It basically puts him in there temporarily -- only for a bit over a year. Then we'd have to go through all this again except the Dems might control the Senate."
No, I disagree.
If Kavanaugh is recess-appointed, he can be confirmed by the Senate that takes office in January 2019.
That Senate will most likely have MORE Republicans in it than are in it now, and two of the weenies currently there -- Flake and Corker -- will be GONE by then. I fearlessly predict that their replacements (if Republican) will happily vote to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh, to establish their "credentials".
Also, by then we won't need the two weak sisters (Collins and Murkowski) any more, either.
Research recess appointment insofar as it has been used to seat Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Been done before. And quite a surprise who did the appointin', as well as the "appointees"...!
Addendum:
Ok, counselor, I'm going to offer you a job. It's a seat on the Supreme Court of The United States, and you'll get a chance to leave your mark upon history and the nation's laws. The "catch" is that the gig may only last a year or two. But it's still yours if you want it and to enjoy while you're there. And it will look good on your resume afterwards...
What say you, counselor...?