Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 09:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Depends on what it says.  If it makes Kav look bad, Feinstein can leak it and then just pool her aids and claim they didn't do it.  "Did you leak it?"  "No."  "You?"  "No."  'Anybody?"  "Nope."  'We didn't do it."

Honestly, I think it's too late to put the Genie back in the bottle and I think in this case the findings should be made public; however, that does not change my views on anyone leaking it as it is currently classified.

I've always said we don't always need to see behind the curtain and if Feinstein would have acted honorably and turned this over the FBI when she received it; this could have all remained confidential.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 09:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Honestly, I think it's too late to put the Genie back in the bottle and I think in this case the findings should be made public; however, that does not change my views on anyone leaking it as it is currently classified.

I've always said we don't always need to see behind the curtain and if Feinstein would have acted honorably and turned this over the FBI when she received it; this could have all remained confidential.

Until the GOP started grousing that they had to delay their hearing for "reasons".  No way the "honorable" people on the right would "leak" the reason why or what the FBI is investigating.  

There's NO WAY we'd be having the same discussions about "leftists attacks" and "Ford waited too long" and all the rest.  No way....I am TOTALLY sure of that. 

But then also if Kavanaugh would have acted honorably in high school this wouldn't be an issue.


All seriousness aside why have any public hearings?  We voted these guys in (decades ago)...if we can't trust them to nominate and vote a man to a lifetime position without the prying eyes of the electorate what's the sense of them even being there? 

[jj22]

(10-04-2018, 09:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Honestly, I think it's too late to put the Genie back in the bottle and I think in this case the findings should be made public; however, that does not change my views on anyone leaking it as it is currently classified.

I've always said we don't always need to see behind the curtain and if Feinstein would have acted honorably and turned this over the FBI when she received it; this could have all remained confidential.

There's nothing "honorable" in not abiding to a sexual assault victims request. In fact, that is something Trump supporters would do. Out the victim after she requests not to be outed. Then act like that was the honorable thing to do.

In the mean time. It appears GOP micromanaging of the FBI probe made it a sham in three ways:

1. Lots of witnesses not interviewed - including Blasey Ford and Kav.
2. WH limits on scope prevented FBI from looking into whether Kav lied while under oath to the Congress (which we know why as there's proof all over the net that he did).
3. GOP wont make findings public. If the little that they did find was good, they surely would have released it. Even Trump supporters should demand they release it if it clears Kav, and exposes Ford as a liar. Why won't they? That's where this common sense I keep preaching about comes into play).

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2018, 10:02 AM)jj22 Wrote: There's nothing "honorable" in not abiding to a sexual assault victims request. In fact, that is something Trump supporters would do. Out the victim after she requests not to be outed. Then act like that was the honorable thing to do.

In the mean time. It appears GOP micromanaging of the FBI probe made it a sham in three ways:

1. Lots of witnesses not interviewed - including Blasey Ford and Kav.
2. WH limits on scope prevented FBI from looking into whether Kav lied while under oath to the Congress (which we know why as there's proof all over the net that he did).
3. GOP wont make findings public. If the little that they did find was good, they surely would have released it. Even Trump supporters should demand they release it if it clears Kav, and exposes Ford as a liar. Why won't they? That's where this common sense I keep preaching about comes into play).

Well someone outed her, and it wasn't the GOP.  

Feinstein does not want the investigation to be made public, btw.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 09:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: Until the GOP started grousing that they had to delay their hearing for "reasons".  No way the "honorable" people on the right would "leak" the reason why or what the FBI is investigating.  

There's NO WAY we'd be having the same discussions about "leftists attacks" and "Ford waited too long" and all the rest.  No way....I am TOTALLY sure of that. 

But then also if Kavanaugh would have acted honorably in high school this wouldn't be an issue.


All seriousness aside why have any public hearings?  We voted these guys in (decades ago)...if we can't trust them to nominate and vote a man to a lifetime position without the prying eyes of the electorate what's the sense of them even being there? 

That was a lot of words; however, it has 0 to do with what I typed. But it did allow you to hone your typing skills and use of smiley things. So it wasn't a total waste.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 10:02 AM)jj22 Wrote: There's nothing "honorable" in not abiding to a sexual assault victims request. In fact, that is something Trump supporters would do. Out the victim after she requests not to be outed. Then act like that was the honorable thing to do.

In the mean time. It appears GOP micromanaging of the FBI probe made it a sham in three ways:

1. Lots of witnesses not interviewed - including Blasey Ford and Kav.
2. WH limits on scope prevented FBI from looking into whether Kav lied while under oath to the Congress (which we know why as there's proof all over the net that he did).
3. GOP wont make findings public. If the little that they did find was good, they surely would have released it. Even Trump supporters should demand they release it if it clears Kav, and exposes Ford as a liar. Why won't they? That's where this common sense I keep preaching about comes into play).

The victim asked that it be kept confidential. You do realize the FBI conducts confidential investigations don't you? If you don't; I would hope that Feinstein does.  

1. Kavs and Ford were interviewed under oath plenty.

2. of course they limited scope, He had already had 6 broad scope investigations

3. My views on releasing the finding have been stated and they are not partisan in nature.

[jj22]

Republicans are requesting a new nominee after the FBI info they received. If the results were good, they wouldn't be making requests like this. #commonsensepolitics

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sasse-i-encouraged-trump-to-pick-someone-instead-of-kavanaugh/ar-BBNTSiE?ocid=ientp

[jj22]

(10-04-2018, 10:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The victim asked that it be kept confidential. You do realize the FBI conducts confidential investigations don't you? If you don't; I would hope that Feinstein does.  

1. Kavs and Ford were interviewed under oath plenty.

2. of course they limited scope, He had already had 6 broad scope investigations

3. My views on releasing the finding have been stated and they are not partisan in nature.

1. Ford yes, but everyone already has stated that Kav faced no real penalty like he would if he lied to FBI. Ford on the other hand would be jailed if she lied to congress. #commonsensepolitics

2. A full scope would have still been within the topic of sexual assault with none of the prior investigation covered. Don't you want him cleared? If so you should be for a full scope investigation, not this partial one leaving doubt.....

3. Speaking on the views of the Republican led congress.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 10:30 AM)jj22 Wrote: Republicans are requesting a new nominee after the FBI info they received. If the results were good, they wouldn't be making requests like this. #commonsensepolitics

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sasse-i-encouraged-trump-to-pick-someone-instead-of-kavanaugh/ar-BBNTSiE?ocid=ientp

You do realize that article was before the results were released don't you?

[Benton]

(10-04-2018, 09:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I wonder how this will get leaked?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senators-to-review-single-copy-of-fbi-findings-on-kavanaugh-in-secure-room/ar-BBNUZx9?ocid=ientp


I will say that regardless of content; any person willfully sharing any information contained in this report should be brought up on charges.

Depends.

If it doesn't impact national security (I don't see why stories about drunken frat boys would) and it's not an ongoing investigation (which it shouldn't be if the time limit is up), then it should be a public document. Of course, the ones deciding whether or not it's a public document are the ones trying to rally support for their bank accounts.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2018, 10:30 AM)jj22 Wrote: Republicans are requesting a new nominee after the FBI info they received. If the results were good, they wouldn't be making requests like this. #commonsensepolitics

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sasse-i-encouraged-trump-to-pick-someone-instead-of-kavanaugh/ar-BBNTSiE?ocid=ientp

Encouraged

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 10:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: That was a lot of words; however, it has 0 to do with what I typed. But it did allow you to hone your typing skills and use of smiley things. So it wasn't a total waste.

"Sarcasm is wasted on the weak minded." Someone, I'm sure.

Your position that it would have remained confidential is as laughable as your contention that you not politically biased.  Anything delaying the inevitable wold have had the GOP on FOX every hour complaining about a "witch hunt" against an "honorable man".  You know it but won't say it out loud. 

Willfully ignoring the timeline of how the letter was sent to the FBI and why and how it was released (the author of the article said it was not Feinstein's people) is pure BS.  But it suits and end that you want so you stick with it.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2018, 10:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: "Sarcasm is wasted on the weak minded." Someone, I'm sure.

Your position that it would have remained confidential is as laughable as your contention that you not politically biased.  Anything delaying the inevitable wold have had the GOP on FOX every hour complaining about a "witch hunt" against an "honorable man".  You know it but won't say it out loud. 

Willfully ignoring the timeline of how the letter was sent to the FBI and why and how it was released (the author of the article said it was not Feinstein's people) is pure BS.  But it suits and end that you want so you stick with it.

I can't be sure, but I think you just called yourself weak-minded.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2018, 10:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I can't be sure, but I think you just called yourself weak-minded.

I didn't say I didn't get it.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 10:39 AM)Benton Wrote: Depends.

If it doesn't impact national security (I don't see why stories about drunken frat boys would) and it's not an ongoing investigation (which it shouldn't be if the time limit is up), then it should be a public document. Of course, the ones deciding whether or not it's a public document are the ones trying to rally support for their bank accounts.

And I've always said it is not up to the individual to decide what does/does not impact National Security. We pay folks to do that and classify document accordingly.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2018, 10:39 AM)Benton Wrote: Depends.

If it doesn't impact national security (I don't see why stories about drunken frat boys would) and it's not an ongoing investigation (which it shouldn't be if the time limit is up), then it should be a public document. Of course, the ones deciding whether or not it's a public document are the ones trying to rally support for their bank accounts.

I don't think investigations like this are ever made public, so it would be more of an exception.  Could end up being a bi-partisan as Senators from both parties are split.

[BmorePat87]

Did they ever interview Ford?

[Benton]

(10-04-2018, 10:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And I've always said it is not up to the individual to decide what does/does not impact National Security. We pay folks to do that and classify document accordingly.

Which is why I wouldn't agree the "any person willfully sharing any information contained in this report should be brought up on charges."


As you say, we pay people to declassify accordingly. And from what we've seen lately, they're doing a very partisan job of that.

(10-04-2018, 10:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think investigations like this are ever made public, so it would be more of an exception.  Could end up being a bi-partisan as Senators from both parties are split.

At the federal level, I can't say as there is a lot more information that never gets made public. But, generally, any time public dollars are used to investigate, any report generated from those investigations is a public document. And, unless it's national security, that's the way it should be. As I said, I can't see why stories about drunken teens would be a part of that.

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2018, 11:01 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Did they ever interview Ford?

Nope, nor Kavanaugh. Nor any of the 20 from the list Ramirez gave them of contemporary corroborators.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2018, 11:01 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Did they ever interview Ford?

It was on TV; didn't you see it? Unfortunately, the Dems were more interested in treating her like Neil Armstrong on his return from the moon than there were allowing a professional prosecutor to obtain any facts.