Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Or the White House limited the scope of the investigation, something they can do if it is not a true criminal investigation (which it was not). 

[*bfine32*]

(09-17-2019, 05:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Or the White House limited the scope of the investigation, something they can do if it is not a true criminal investigation (which it was not). 

So we have 3 options (unfounded, FBI worked to silence the investigation, White House worked to silence the investigation)  and 2 of them point to actions by the US Government. Are you sure it was disingenuous to use the term Conspiracy Theory? Seems that's a textbook example. 

[Bengalzona]

I don't know, but I'm about done with the whole "Kavanaugh thing". I mean, the guy could be guilty as hell, or he could be innocent. All you originally had was a handful of witnesses without much corroboration between them and no physical evidence for things that happened in the distant past. That is hard to build a case on. And what is being presented this time? A witness with no physical evidence for something that happened in the distant past? And the fact that this was not brought up during the original case?

I dunno, but I just don't see this going anywhere outside of a minor media frenzy which upsets a few people.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2019, 03:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.

No, it's pointing out a fact.  The FBI has vetted Kavanaugh several times, he has been investigated.  The House hasn't done one.  These are facts.

Quote: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. 

The article's tone irrelevant.  I didn't seek out an inflammatory source, I googled Kavanaugh's NYT story error and all the options were conservative sites.  I suppose I could have used Fox, but I'm sure you'd have complained about that.  In any event I only quoted the fact based section of the article as that was the entire point of my post.

Quote: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. 

No, I pointed out the NYT's made a basic, and significant, error in journalism.  This was either done intentionally or due to incompetence, neither is a good thing.  Again the oped was irrelevant to my point, the facts it pointed out where.
 

Quote: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. 

We don't know that they ignored it.  They could have had information that made questioning these other people superfluous.  We don't know.  

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

I'm sure.  Can they not have a secondary or tertiary focus?  Can they only deal with one issue at a time?

Quote: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? 

Absolutely.  I read that a Clinton confidant reiterated a previous accusation against Kavanaugh.  Once the victim of said event was revealed to have no recollection of it I gave the accusation minimal credence.  I will say that burying someone on page one and correcting the story on page twelve isn't exactly fair journalism.  Out of curiosity did you see the same book contains information about Ford's friend being threatened to corroborate her story?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2019, 07:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I don't know, but I'm about done with the whole "Kavanaugh thing". I mean, the guy could be guilty as hell, or he could be innocent. All you originally had was a handful of witnesses without much corroboration between them and no physical evidence for things that happened in the distant past. That is hard to build a case on. And what is being presented this time? A witness with no physical evidence for something that happened in the distant past? And the fact that this was not brought up during the original case?

I dunno, but I just don't see this going anywhere outside of a minor media frenzy which upsets a few people.

Pretty much this.  Also the NYT's did themselves no favors by completely flubbing the initial story.  If you're dealing with a hyper sensitive issue that you know is going to cause a major stir would you not triple, quadruple check your story, run it by several people, before finally publishing it?  We've had discussions about the falling standards of journalism, some accusations of which are fair and some are not.  You'd think if you're the worlds most respected organ of the profession you'd take extreme pains to avoid providing the profession's detractors with more ammunition.

[Bengalzona]

(09-17-2019, 11:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pretty much this.  Also the NYT's did themselves no favors by completely flubbing the initial story.  If you're dealing with a hyper sensitive issue that you know is going to cause a major stir would you not triple, quadruple check your story, run it by several people, before finally publishing it?  We've had discussions about the falling standards of journalism, some accusations of which are fair and some are not.  You'd think if you're the worlds most respected organ of the profession you'd take extreme pains to avoid providing the profession's detractors with more ammunition.

Yeah. I have been cautious about criticizing journalists and journalism in this era due to the whole 'anti-media' movement, and I don't agree with that at all. But they are not without fault either. I realize that the internet and FCC rulings have changed the way we receive media and has placed tremendous new pressures on news outlets in particular. But that is the time when you definitely want to make sure your facts are more certain than ever, that you are as unbiased as possible and that your organization is not relying on 'sensationalized stories'. It seems to me that you want credibility more than ever right now, not the 'low laying fruit'.

One of the things that I like about NPR is that they hardly ever 'break' a story. In fact, they are usually one of the last news outlets to report on it. They do have a bias that shows sometimes, but at least they make an effort to do extra homework on stories and keep from riding the 'sensational waves' a bit.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2019, 11:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah. I have been cautious about criticizing journalists and journalism in this era due to the whole 'anti-media' movement, and I don't agree with that at all. But they are not without fault either. I realize that the internet and FCC rulings have changed the way we receive media and has placed tremendous new pressures on news outlets in particular. But that is the time when you definitely want to make sure your facts are more certain than ever, that you are as unbiased as possible and that your organization is not relying on 'sensationalized stories'. It seems to me that you want credibility more than ever right now, not the 'low laying fruit'.

One of the things that I like about NPR is that they hardly ever 'break' a story. In fact, they are usually one of the last news outlets to report on it. They do have a bias that shows sometimes, but at least they make an effort to do extra homework on stories and keep from riding the 'sensational waves' a bit.

I appreciate your acknowledging this set of circumstances.  I definitely let my original point get lost in the back and forth, but this was it.  Completely true that twitter and other platform, not to mention the proliferation of online "journalism" sites has put tremendous pressure on the traditional press to generate revenue via clicks that they have lost to the ever expanding sea of choices in this area.  If you're part of the traditional journalism apparatus your only hope is the quality of your output, because you're never going the trump to quantity available.  This basic, and significant, error is something that shouldn't have happened in the 40-90's and they just can't afford to be making it now.

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2019, 07:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we have 3 options (unfounded, FBI worked to silence the investigation, White House worked to silence the investigation)  and 2 of them point to actions by the US Government. Are you sure it was disingenuous to use the term Conspiracy Theory? Seems that's a textbook example. 

Suggesting that agents of the government operated in a partisan manner is not the same as a conspiracy theory. If it were, that definition would be quite broad. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2019, 10:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's pointing out a fact.  The FBI has vetted Kavanaugh several times, he has been investigated.  The House hasn't done one.  These are facts.

Something being true doesn't make it any less of a deflection. 

Quote:The article's tone irrelevant.  I didn't seek out an inflammatory source, I googled Kavanaugh's NYT story error and all the options were conservative sites.  I suppose I could have used Fox, but I'm sure you'd have complained about that.  In any event I only quoted the fact based section of the article as that was the entire point of my post

.

It's an oped. The tone is absolutely relevant. If it were actual journalism or reporting, tone would also still be relevant. If you actually used a news article that reported on facts rather than an oped that pushed a false narrative, there would have been a different response.

Quote:No, I pointed out the NYT's made a basic, and significant, error in journalism.  This was either done intentionally or due to incompetence, neither is a good thing.  Again the oped was irrelevant to my point, the facts it pointed out where.

 
If the oped was irrelevant, you probably shouldn't have used an oped and quoted it, especially one that was so full of false narratives.

Quote:We don't know that they ignored it.  They could have had information that made questioning these other people superfluous.  We don't know.  

So why not have an independent look at it? What information would they have had that made the testimony of 25 people superfluous that somehow has not gotten out from either Ramirez or Kavanaugh?

Quote:I'm sure.  Can they not have a secondary or tertiary focus?  Can they only deal with one issue at a time?

Creating an independent task force would allow for additional resources to allow this. Kamala Harris is pushing for this.

Quote:Absolutely.  I read that a Clinton confidant reiterated a previous accusation against Kavanaugh.  Once the victim of said event was revealed to have no recollection of it I gave the accusation minimal credence.  I will say that burying someone on page one and correcting the story on page twelve isn't exactly fair journalism. 

Responses like this is what makes me say you didn't read it. You immediately reference the 4 sentence portion 11 paragraphs in that is being pushed by other media outlets when I asked if you actually read the article. You make zero reference to anything else. 

Quote: Out of curiosity did you see the same book contains information about Ford's friend being threatened to corroborate her story?  

Yea, that's pretty terrible that they'd try to use her addiction as a threat. I'm not sure what it has to do with the FBI not fully investigating Ramirez's claims though. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-17-2019, 11:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pretty much this.  Also the NYT's did themselves no favors by completely flubbing the initial story.  If you're dealing with a hyper sensitive issue that you know is going to cause a major stir would you not triple, quadruple check your story, run it by several people, before finally publishing it?  We've had discussions about the falling standards of journalism, some accusations of which are fair and some are not.  You'd think if you're the worlds most respected organ of the profession you'd take extreme pains to avoid providing the profession's detractors with more ammunition.

They flubbed the story of Ramirez's investigation being handcuffed and inadequate?

[GMDino]

I'll repeat myself:

Some of you want 100% accuracy and perfect reporting or you will throw the entire organization and all od media under the bus as "helping Trump prove his point" but you accept every lie he tells you.

It's sad rom people I thought might be smarter than that.

As to the story itself I'd also think many of you would believe in further investigations if new information was made available.  You certainly wanted Benghazi and "her emails" continuously investigated.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2019, 01:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Something being true doesn't make it any less of a deflection.

 

Dear god you are being pig headed on this topic.

Quote:It's an oped. The tone is absolutely relevant. If it were actual journalism or reporting, tone would also still be relevant. If you actually used a news article that reported on facts rather than an oped that pushed a false narrative, there would have been a different response.



 
If the oped was irrelevant, you probably shouldn't have used an oped and quoted it, especially one that was so full of false narratives.

My choices were rather limited.  I suppose I should have used the Fox News source, I'm sure you wouldn't have nitpicked at that.  It almost sounds like you're deflecting.  I do expect to see you attacking the sources like Vox and Vice that are routinely used by others on this board.

Quote:So why not have an independent look at it? What information would they have had that made the testimony of 25 people superfluous that somehow has not gotten out from either Ramirez or Kavanaugh?

Not sure, you'd have to ask them.

Quote:Creating an independent task force would allow for additional resources to allow this. Kamala Harris is pushing for this.

Well, the Dems control the House, they could certainly do this if they wanted.

Quote:Responses like this is what makes me say you didn't read it. You immediately reference the 4 sentence portion 11 paragraphs in that is being pushed by other media outlets when I asked if you actually read the article. You make zero reference to anything else. 

I made reference to a glaring omission on their part.  Given that this was journalistic incompetence on an epic scale, at best (btw you keep ignoring this) I chose to comment on it.  Using your vernacular, this was my primary focus. 

Quote:Yea, that's pretty terrible that they'd try to use her addiction as a threat. I'm not sure what it has to do with the FBI not fully investigating Ramirez's claims though. 

First, you're assuming facts not in evidence.  Secondly it could very well have a lot to do with it.  When they investigate and find this kind of witness intimidation/coercion it could be the cake topper for them to accurately determine the accusations have no validity.  The point being, if you have to threaten someone to corroborate a story then it's likely/probable the story isn't true.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2019, 01:07 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: They flubbed the story of Ramirez's investigation being handcuffed and inadequate?

Yeah, by making an enormous, and basic, error they completely flubbed their reporting of this story.  'Zona understands this, I honestly don't get why you don't.

(09-18-2019, 09:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'll repeat myself:

Some of you want 100% accuracy and perfect reporting or you will throw the entire organization and all od media under the bus as "helping Trump prove his point" but you accept every lie he tells you.

Nah, I'll settle for baseline competence.  If I made such a basic error in an investigation I'd be subject to significant discipline.  You don't get to make errors of that magnitude at the top of your profession.

Quote:It's sad rom people I thought might be smarter than that.

As to the story itself I'd also think many of you would believe in further investigations if new information was made available.  You certainly wanted Benghazi and "her emails" continuously investigated.

Except this isn't new information.  It also comes from a Clinton confidant and it details an incident the victim states they have no memory of.  Quite the smoking gun.  But, as you say, please feel free to investigate it, House Judiciary Committee.

[Belsnickel]

Good grief there has been a lot of bickering on this one. I think the important thing here is that there should be an agreement that if something were to come up that substantiated previous claims or were new allegations for someone, not just Kavanaugh, after they were confirmed to office that it would be entirely proper for that person to be held accountable for those allegations and/or perjury.

The dismissal of the idea that any further investigation into such things is irrelevant is really what seemed to cause some consternation among some board members.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2019, 11:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Good grief there has been a lot of bickering on this one. I think the important thing here is that there should be an agreement that if something were to come up that substantiated previous claims or were new allegations for someone, not just Kavanaugh, after they were confirmed to office that it would be entirely proper for that person to be held accountable for those allegations and/or perjury.

The dismissal of the idea that any further investigation into such things is irrelevant is really what seemed to cause some consternation among some board members.

Credible allegations, absolutely.  Also, can we not agree that there are many areas of the government that could conduct such an investigation, if warranted?  Can we not also agree that some of those areas are controlled by the Democratic party?  If we can agree on all three of these things then there's nothing left to argue about in this vein.

[GMDino]

(09-18-2019, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Credible allegations, absolutely.  Also, can we not agree that there are many areas of the government that could conduct such an investigation, if warranted?  Can we not also agree that some of those areas are controlled by the Democratic party?  If we can agree on all three of these things then there's nothing left to argue about in this vein.

Well except you insisting that an article about the FBI should be about about the House Judiciary Committee. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 11:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, by making an enormous, and basic, error they completely flubbed their reporting of this story.  'Zona understands this, I honestly don't get why you don't.

Because I actually read the story. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 11:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  

Dear god you are being pig headed on this topic.


My choices were rather limited.  I suppose I should have used the Fox News source, I'm sure you wouldn't have nitpicked at that.  It almost sounds like you're deflecting.  I do expect to see you attacking the sources like Vox and Vice that are routinely used by others on this board.

Not sure, you'd have to ask them.

Well, the Dems control the House, they could certainly do this if they wanted.


I made reference to a glaring omission on their part.  Given that this was journalistic incompetence on an epic scale, at best (btw you keep ignoring this) I chose to comment on it.  Using your vernacular, this was my primary focus. 

First, you're assuming facts not in evidence.  Secondly it could very well have a lot to do with it.  When they investigate and find this kind of witness intimidation/coercion it could be the cake topper for them to accurately determine the accusations have no validity.  The point being, if you have to threaten someone to corroborate a story then it's likely/probable the story isn't true.

I'm pretty disappointed that your response turned to personal insults. You're struggling to stay on topic and are jumping around from non sequitur to non sequitur, presumably in an attempt to hide the fact that you're lost due to your unwillingness to even read the article you've now spent a day criticizing. 

Oh well...

[jj22]

If you are looking for accountability when it comes to sexual assault accusations from Trump supporters, you haven't learned a thing since 2016.

In the mean time Biden is still busy having to answer question about putting his hand on some ladies shoulders, while never being accused of sexual assault.

Must be nice being a Republican.

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2019, 11:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Good grief there has been a lot of bickering on this one. I think the important thing here is that there should be an agreement that if something were to come up that substantiated previous claims or were new allegations for someone, not just Kavanaugh, after they were confirmed to office that it would be entirely proper for that person to be held accountable for those allegations and/or perjury.

The dismissal of the idea that any further investigation into such things is irrelevant is really what seemed to cause some consternation among some board members.

Nah, consternation came because nothing new was introduced. NYT just wanted to rehash old stuff to rile up their base and apparently 2020 presidential Candidates. And I stated this stinks of double jeopardy; but was then told I don't know what double jeopardy is.