Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 06:18 PM)Dill Wrote: So you didn't need to own it, but did anyway.

In think ownership can be assigned given the results of the article. As I said: the principle of double jeopardy. There was absolutely nothing new here, but the Dem 2020's went after the red meat. Kudos to Biden, one of the few adults running for the Dems. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 03:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ever want to see a guy who likes to drink a lot of beer and whip his weiner out at girls just look at Kavanaugh.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/times-apologizes-tweet-revises-kavanaugh-140536566.html

Quote:The Times also apologized for an offensive tweet sent out by the opinion section advertising its initial story. The tweet said: "Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn't belong at Yale University in the first place."

Quote:The Times deleted the tweet and said it was "clearly inappropriate and offensive" and was looking into how it was sent.

The Times apologized and call the assertion inappropriate and offensive. Do you have something you'd like to share with the class? 

[GMDino]

(09-16-2019, 08:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/times-apologizes-tweet-revises-kavanaugh-140536566.html



The Times apologized and call the assertion inappropriate and offensive. Do you have something you'd like to share with the class? 

Yeah: The NY Time didn't include a fact in a summary of a part of a book and they corrected it.  That is what good new sites do. And apologizing for mistakes should be welcome in our country from the POTUS on down. Also Kavanaugh has been accused by multiple women of waving his weiner or trying to sexually assault them while he was drunk on beer.  In at least one, well documented case, the FBI didn't even bother to investigate it before he was forced through the Senate to a lifetime federal position.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[BmorePat87]

I certainly hope that everyone in this country believes that we should continue to scrutinize our elected officials to ensure that they continue to belong in their positions. Any new information should be considered, though not necessarily believed immediately as fact. Someone being in their position is not an automatic pass at any future investigations or scrutiny.

The NYT's story should have included the initial information about the alleged victim, but that also doesn't take away from the fact that they said this was coming from an alleged witness and that the actual focus of the story was the fact that the allegation we knew of was not properly investigated. The part about the new allegation is a whole 4 sentences in a much longer story. The report points out that the first accuser gave the names of 25 people to the FBI who could corroborate her story, none of which the FBI reached out to, even as many tried to contact the FBI on their own. Two agents told her that her story was credible but they had their hands tied until they were authorized to move forward. Grassley, railroading the confirmation forward, would claim that there was no corroboration to the story.

The sham investigation is the story, and it is sad to see toxic partisanship and false narratives being used to again derail any attempts to have a fair investigation into someone who can serve in a vital role for life.

We live in an age of misinformation and twisted narratives and that is apparent in the need we are seeing to use dishonesty to further attack the free press and rule of law.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2019, 09:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I certainly hope that everyone in this country believes that we should continue to scrutinize our elected officials to ensure that they continue to belong in their positions. Any new information should be considered, though not necessarily believed immediately as fact. Someone being in their position is not an automatic pass at any future investigations or scrutiny.

The NYT's story should have included the initial information about the alleged victim, but that also doesn't take away from the fact that they said this was coming from an alleged witness and that the actual focus of the story was the fact that the allegation we knew of was not properly investigated. The part about the new allegation is a whole 4 sentences in a much longer story. The report points out that the first accuser gave the names of 25 people to the FBI who could corroborate her story, none of which the FBI reached out to, even as many tried to contact the FBI on their own. Two agents told her that her story was credible but they had their hands tied until they were authorized to move forward. Grassley, railroading the confirmation forward, would claim that there was no corroboration to the story.

The sham investigation is the story, and it is sad to see toxic partisanship and false narratives being used to again derail any attempts to have a fair investigation into someone who can serve in a vital role for life.

We live in an age of misinformation and twisted narratives and that is apparent in the need we are seeing to use dishonesty to further attack the free press and rule of law.

Exactly.

The same group of people demanding the press be 100% accurate and perfect at all times attacks them for correcting any mistakes and support a man who deliberately lies to them almost all the time.

[GMDino]

Even last year a full investigation would not have mattered to republicans.




https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877?fbclid=IwAR0l1_tCSBkbK5Olb50fy_50Dn-BUf1qXXeitBcjRgo87Fr_rB-CP-CDc4U

Quote:A poll from The Economist/YouGov asked about allegations of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh, both of whom are scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.



The survey asked, "If it were proven that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago, do you think that does or does not disqualify Kavanaugh from being a Supreme Court Justice?"



Forty-eight percent of respondents overall thought it should disqualify him, while 28 percent said it should not, and 24 percent were not sure, according to the results from The Economist/YouGov. But among Republicans, a majority—55 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault does not disqualify Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court. About one-quarter, 27 percent, thought it does disqualify him, while 18 percent were not sure. The vast majority of Democrats—71 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault should disqualify Kavanaugh.

The poll from The Economist/YouGov surveyed 1,500 U.S. adults from September 23 through 25. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

They don't care if he's guilty as long as they think he vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

[Dill]

(09-16-2019, 07:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In think ownership can be assigned given the results of the article. As I said: the principle of double jeopardy. There was absolutely nothing new here, but the Dem 2020's went after the red meat. Kudos to Biden, one of the few adults running for the Dems. 

You mean your ownership can be accepted.

LOL and NOT double jeopardy. 

A Senate confirmation hearing is not a court trial.

Cavanaugh has never formally stood in court for his many assault charges.  

[Dill]

(09-17-2019, 09:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The report points out that the first accuser gave the names of 25 people to the FBI who could corroborate her story, none of which the FBI reached out to, even as many tried to contact the FBI on their own. Two agents told her that her story was credible but they had their hands tied until they were authorized to move forward. Grassley, railroading the confirmation forward, would claim that there was no corroboration to the story.

The sham investigation is the story, and it is sad to see toxic partisanship and false narratives being used to again derail any attempts to have a fair investigation into someone who can serve in a vital role for life.

We live in an age of misinformation and twisted narratives and that is apparent in the need we are seeing to use dishonesty to further attack the free press and rule of law.

(09-17-2019, 09:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.
The same group of people demanding the press be 100% accurate and perfect at all times attacks them for correcting any mistakes and support a man who deliberately lies to them almost all the time.

When the gaslight is low enough, Trump and the NYT can have equal credibility.

all 'butthurt' over hillary's loss.  No need to read further. . . .

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2019, 10:56 AM)Dill Wrote: You mean your ownership can be accepted.

LOL and NOT double jeopardy. 

A Senate confirmation hearing is not a court trial.

Cavanaugh has never formally stood in court for his many assault charges.  

To be fair, which I know you're concerned about, only one of the accusations against him had any real credibility.  One was flat out debunked.  It really comes down to are we going to allow an unsubstantiated allegation to destroy a person's life?  If you believe Blasey-Ford or not you still have to concede that it's her word against his.  I just don't think we should create a world in which that is sufficient to ruin someone's life.

I really don't think the word of a Clinton confidant is going to tip the scales in that regard when the alleged victim states they have zero recollection of the event.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2019, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be fair, which I know you're concerned about, only one of the accusations against him had any real credibility.  One was flat out debunked.  It really comes down to are we going to allow an unsubstantiated allegation to destroy a person's life?  If you believe Blasey-Ford or not you still have to concede that it's her word against his.  I just don't think we should create a world in which that is sufficient to ruin someone's life.

I really don't think the word of a Clinton confidant is going to tip the scales in that regard when the alleged victim states they have zero recollection of the event.

I dunno...if you had a list of 25 people with potential information about an accusation would you contact zero of them and then say there was nothing to substantiate the claim?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2019, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: I dunno...if you had a list of 25 people with potential information about an accusation would you contact zero of them and then say there was nothing to substantiate the claim?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the House Judiciary Committee has its own investigators and it's been under Dem control for close to a year now.  Why do you think they haven't investigated it further?  Do you think that's because they think there's a lot of incriminating information to be found there?

[GMDino]

(09-17-2019, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the House Judiciary Committee has its own investigators and it's been under Dem control for close to a year now.  Why do you think they haven't investigated it further?  Do you think that's because they think there's a lot of incriminating information to be found there?

Correct me if I'm wrong but we are talking about the FBI.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2019, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the House Judiciary Committee has its own investigators and it's been under Dem control for close to a year now.  Why do you think they haven't investigated it further?  Do you think that's because they think there's a lot of incriminating information to be found there?

This is completely irrelevant to the FBI failing to contact those people and a really bad attempt at deflecting away from the point that the investigation is the actual controversy.

I get that you're going with the narrative that the report was just about a new allegation, hence you derailing any mention of the criticism of the investigation and dropping that silly opinion piece from some super conservative radio host who finds it necessary to add "Roe v Wade is an abomination" randomly into tweets about Brett Kavanaugh and the NYTs. 

But, to answer the question, they only have so many staffers and have been focused on the wide range of issues stemming from Trump directly. Not to mention the information on the inadequacy of the FBI investigation is new and they are now addressing whether or not they have the resources to investigate it. 

Let's focus on the real narrative, not fake ones. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2019, 12:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but we are talking about the FBI.

It's increasingly apparent that those criticizing the NYT didn't read more than a sentence of the article. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2019, 12:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but we are talking about the FBI.

We are indeed.  The same FBI that has done a thorough investigation on Kavanaugh on several occasions.

(09-17-2019, 12:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is completely irrelevant to the FBI failing to contact those people and a really bad attempt at deflecting away from the point that the investigation is the actual controversy.

I'm not deflecting from anything.  The FBI performed the investigation they believed was appropriate. Indeed, they have thoroughly vetted Kavanaugh on several occasions. 

Quote:I get that you're going with the narrative that the report was just about a new allegation, hence you derailing any mention of the criticism of the investigation and dropping that silly opinion piece from some super conservative radio host who finds it necessary to add "Roe v Wade is an abomination" randomly into tweets about Brett Kavanaugh and the NYTs. 

There were several google items about this rather pertinent omission from the NYT article.  They were all absolutely from right leaning sites.  I can't force more moderate or left leaning sources to actually report the news, hence I provided what was available.  The pertinent facts from the cited article aren't in dispute though so I'm not sure what the source has to do with anything.

Quote:But, to answer the question, they only have so many staffers and have been focused on the wide range of issues stemming from Trump directly. Not to mention the information on the inadequacy of the FBI investigation is new and they are now addressing whether or not they have the resources to investigate it. 

Let's focus on the real narrative, not fake ones. 

We are focusing on the real narrative.  The FBI conducted the investigation they felt was appropriate.  If the House Judiciary Committee felt this was inadequate they could absolutely follow up.  The fact that they did not is rather telling.  I get it, you believe the FBI investigation was inadequate.  Apparently the House Dems disagree with you as they haven't verifiably followed up on this at all.  Your assertion that they have bigger fish to fry doesn't exactly hold water as getting Kavanaugh has been a primary goal of the Dems since his confirmation.  If they had anything of substance on him they would pursue it.  If you choose not to believe this that is, of course, your prerogative. 

(09-17-2019, 12:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's increasingly apparent that those criticizing the NYT didn't read more than a sentence of the article. 

Or maybe we just don't agree with the conclusion you came to?  They either deliberately or incompetently left out a key piece of information from their article.  Neither option is a good one.  You complained about condescension previously, please practice what you preach.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2019, 02:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We are indeed.  The same FBI that has done a thorough investigation on Kavanaugh on several occasions.


I'm not deflecting from anything.  The FBI performed the investigation they believed was appropriate. Indeed, they have thoroughly vetted Kavanaugh on several occasions. 

You responded to claims that the FBI failed to contact any of the names provided to them by asking why the House Judiciary Committee hasn't had an investigation. That absolutely absolutely is deflecting.

Quote:There were several google items about this rather pertinent omission from the NYT article.  They were all absolutely from right leaning sites.  I can't force more moderate or left leaning sources to actually report the news, hence I provided what was available.  The pertinent facts from the cited article aren't in dispute though so I'm not sure what the source has to do with anything.

Every single news source has reported that the NYT updated their report to include that information. If you were looking for someone who was going to use that omission as a launching point for how bad the media is, then yea all of your sources will be conservative. When you post an oped that uses a false narrative and glosses over what the article they're ranting about was actually about, the source becomes incredibly relevant as it is about opinion not facts. 

Quote:We are focusing on the real narrative. 

You aren't. The first thing you posted on this was a extremely partisan oped that only focused on the new 4 sentence allegation and completely ignored the rest of the report. Your follow ups focused on that false narrative again until someone mentioned the FBI investigation to you. 

 

Quote:The FBI conducted the investigation they felt was appropriate.  If the House Judiciary Committee felt this was inadequate they could absolutely follow up.  The fact that they did not is rather telling.  I get it, you believe the FBI investigation was inadequate.  

The whole point of the report is to question if the investigation was adequate and whether or not the practices of the FBI need to be scrutinized. Dismissing this by saying the FBI thought it was appropriate is nonsensical. Should nothing be scrutinized if the party that is facing scrutiny says they think they acted appropriately? I think ignoring 25 sources, even when they reach out to you, is troublesome. 

Quote:Apparently the House Dems disagree with you as they haven't verifiably followed up on this at all.  Your assertion that they have bigger fish to fry doesn't exactly hold water as getting Kavanaugh has been a primary goal of the Dems since his confirmation.  If they had anything of substance on him they would pursue it.  If you choose not to believe this that is, of course, your prerogative. 

That came from Nadler not me. Also, Trump has absolutely been their primary focus.

Quote:Or maybe we just don't agree with the conclusion you came to?  They either deliberately or incompetently left out a key piece of information from their article.  Neither option is a good one.  You complained about condescension previously, please practice what you preach.

If you read the article you wouldn't characterize it as a key piece, nor would you have posted that oped that did. This isn't meant to be condescension. Did you actually read it prior to posting the oped? 

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2019, 10:56 AM)Dill Wrote: You mean your ownership can be accepted.

LOL and NOT double jeopardy. 

A Senate confirmation hearing is not a court trial.

Cavanaugh has never formally stood in court for his many assault charges.  

# Folks can interpret my posts however they want

LOL aside. I clearly explained when I typed the word Double Jeopardy that it was the same in principle, but too late. But you have found a simple fact you can dispute without trying to grasp the point being made. I fully aware of the legal definition of double-jeopardy and this is trying him for something he's already been tried for.

During his confirmation all of these were investigated by the FBI, there was no new facts presented, the NYT just went on a witch hunt and "tried" him again for something that he has already been tried for and our Senate confirmed his appointment. Oh plus the fact when the Conservative wins, the one word far-left Liberal elected officials and their can scream is "IMPEACHMENT!!" 

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2019, 02:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We are indeed.  The same FBI that has done a thorough investigation on Kavanaugh on several occasions.


I'm not deflecting from anything.  The FBI performed the investigation they believed was appropriate. Indeed, they have thoroughly vetted Kavanaugh on several occasions. 



There were several google items about this rather pertinent omission from the NYT article.  They were all absolutely from right leaning sites.  I can't force more moderate or left leaning sources to actually report the news, hence I provided what was available.  The pertinent facts from the cited article aren't in dispute though so I'm not sure what the source has to do with anything.


We are focusing on the real narrative.  The FBI conducted the investigation they felt was appropriate.  If the House Judiciary Committee felt this was inadequate they could absolutely follow up.  The fact that they did not is rather telling.  I get it, you believe the FBI investigation was inadequate.  Apparently the House Dems disagree with you as they haven't verifiably followed up on this at all.  Your assertion that they have bigger fish to fry doesn't exactly hold water as getting Kavanaugh has been a primary goal of the Dems since his confirmation.  If they had anything of substance on him they would pursue it.  If you choose not to believe this that is, of course, your prerogative. 


Or maybe we just don't agree with the conclusion you came to?  They either deliberately or incompetently left out a key piece of information from their article.  Neither option is a good one.  You complained about condescension previously, please practice what you preach.

But conspiracy theories are great fun. I suppose I can accuse someone of anything and if the FBI determines it doesn't even warrant and investigation or the claims have been investigated at an earlier date and determined to be unfounded. I can claim the FBI is tainted in some way.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2019, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But conspiracy theories are great fun. I suppose I can accuse someone of anything and if the FBI determines it doesn't even warrant and investigation or the claims have been investigated at an earlier date and determined to be unfounded. I can claim the FBI is tainted in some way.

Making this out to be some internet conspiracy theory is an incredibly disingenuous attempt to trivialize it. At the very least, reporters seemingly uncovering the fact that the FBI ignored 25 sources should warrant an independent look into whether or not there's a basis to the claims and, if there are, steps were properly followed. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2019, 03:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Making this out to be some internet conspiracy theory is an incredibly disingenuous attempt to trivialize it. At the very least, reporters seemingly uncovering the fact that the FBI ignored 25 sources should warrant an independent look into whether or not there's a basis to the claims and, if there are, steps were properly followed. 

We have no idea why they were "ignored". I'm sure the FBI knows why. It's either because they really wanted Kavs to be a SJ or they found the claims unfounded.