Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(09-18-2019, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

You were "told" it not only wouldn't apply but that the principles at work were different.  Rather than challenge that with your own take you climbed back up on the cross.

As to the topic of the post: No one on the right side of the aisle cares.  New info, old info, cover up, doesn't matter.  They believe Trump and everything he says and does.  It's obvious from the defenses posted here.

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2019, 01:36 PM)GMDino Wrote:

You were "told" it not only wouldn't apply but that the principles at work were different.  Rather than challenge that with your own take you climbed back up on the cross.

As to the topic of the post: No one on the right side of the aisle cares.  New info, old info, cover up, doesn't matter.  They believe Trump and everything he says and does.  It's obvious from the defenses posted here.

Exactly, that's what I said I was told, thanks for confirming. To say I didn't challenge my being "wrong", is false. I explained exactly why I said the principle was the same.  If you don't buy it don't buy it. But don't continue to lie.

And it's obvious from responses here and 2020 POTUS candidates; Kavs is guilty of something that the FBI has duly investigated and found unsubstantiated. It's been over a year and folks won't accept it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2019, 12:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well except you insisting that an article about the FBI should be about about the House Judiciary Committee. 

Except that's not what I said.  But expecting you to be fair about this is obviously hoping for far too much.

(09-18-2019, 12:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because I actually read the story. 

Yeah, I did too.  Just because "x" "witnesses weren't contacted doesn't mean an investigation wasn't done.

(09-18-2019, 12:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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...

Literally scanned my post and saw not a hint of personal insults.  I'm sincerely hoping you're not turning into one of those people.  I too am disappointed you don't get the point I'm making when others have seemed to grasp it with no issue.  I'm fine with calling it a day on the back and forth though as it seems to have reached the stage of being pointless.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2019, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

The credibility crushing error aside, this is my main issue with this.  This is not new information.  Not only is it nothing new it's coming from a Clinton confidant (a fact that not a single person has addressed in this thread) and the victim says they have zero recollection of the event.  Based on these two, indisputable, facts alone this doesn't seem like a story worth any serious consideration.  But, as I said, the Dems can use their committees to further investigate this if they think there's something there.  There's literally nothing stopping them.

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Double jeopardy is a legal principle that states that you cannot be tried twice for a same crime after being acquitted. 

In this case, it would not be applicable. The investigation was not criminal, he was not charged with any crime so he was not tried for any crime which means he was neither convicted nor acquitted. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I did too.  Just because "x" "witnesses weren't contacted doesn't mean an investigation wasn't done.


Literally scanned my post and saw not a hint of personal insults.  I'm sincerely hoping you're not turning into one of those people.  I too am disappointed you don't get the point I'm making when others have seemed to grasp it with no issue.  I'm fine with calling it a day on the back and forth though as it seems to have reached the stage of being pointless.

Accusing someone of being pigheaded is most certainly an insult. I'm not pained by it just as I am not ashamed by your attempts to admonish me for not living in the ignorance of this issue that you sought to promote. 

[BmorePat87]

I appreciate everyone who read the 1,800 word article and understood that a 110 word paragraph two pages in was not the focus of the article. There is so much information available at our fingertips. No one should choose to live in the shadow of misinformation.

[*bfine32*]

(09-16-2019, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Perhaps the line I bolded in you original quote. *Dill had no problem identifying it.

2. Because that's grounds for impeachment

3. Hell ever DEM 2020 candidate except Biden and Amy seems to be crying for it

4. He's already been accused and confirmed. Maybe it's that double jeopardy thing. In before correction: I know not the same, but the principle remains

5. You really don't think there's anything to question RGB's physical ability to sit the bench and to suggest so would be "random"?  But I agree anyone that would call for such a measure would be doing so without the interest of the American people in mind. No matter how much they would suggest that's the reason.

6. I just have a problem with judging the judges. Not sure about the blind partisan remark. But I assume it wasn't another jab. 

(09-18-2019, 03:29 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Double jeopardy is a legal principle that states that you cannot be tried twice for a same crime after being acquitted. 

In this case, it would not be applicable. The investigation was not criminal, he was not charged with any crime so he was not tried for any crime which means he was neither convicted nor acquitted. 

These charges were known during his confirmation, the FBI found them unwarranted, he was confirmed, NYT runs an article that basically said "These people really meant what they said a year ago", 2020 Dems assign guilt "he should be impeached". Suggesting he should be impeached for something that has already been identified, investigated, determined to have no merit, and then confirmed by Congress IMO is the same "principle". I am not suggesting anyone still mad at him is breaking a constitutional law.

This is the text from the 5th Amendment: nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; IMO Kav has been put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. I realize it's easier to argue against the turn of phrase I chose to use than what the NYT and the 2020 Dems actually did.

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is the text from the 5th Amendment: nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; IMO Kav has been put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. I realize it's easier to argue against the turn of phrase I chose to use than what the NYT and the 2020 Dems actually did.

You doubled down on the use of a legal principle outside of the legal system as a justification of dismissing new scrutiny of the FBI investigation, so commenting on its use is relevant. Also, the NYT and 2020 Dems have been discussed, so I am not sure what you're suggesting. 

Quote:These charges were known during his confirmation, the FBI found them unwarranted, he was confirmed, NYT runs an article that basically said "These people really meant what they said a year ago", 2020 Dems assign guilt "he should be impeached". Suggesting he should be impeached for something that has already been identified, investigated, determined to have no merit, and then confirmed by Congress IMO is the same "principle". I am not suggesting anyone still mad at him is breaking a constitutional law.

Did the FBI find them unwarranted? That's the question that those scrutinizing the process want answered. As I mentioned to you before when you compared this to a conspiracy theory, the White House has the power to set specific limits on the FBI investigation as it was not a criminal investigation but rather an extended background investigation. If they were not authorized to, the FBI would have been unable to speak to anyone outside of Ramirez, Ford, and Judge. It would explain why they opted to not talk to the 25 people Ramirez identified. It also does not suggest there was any determination that her accusations were without merit by the agents investigating it.

NBC reported last year that they were hearing that the investigation had been given a strict limit in its scope, with agents only allowed to talk to specific people. The book the NYT report is adapted from seemingly corroborated this.

Confusing this process with an extensive criminal investigation would certainly make it seem like legal principles should apply, but it was not an actual criminal investigation. 

I don't think having an independent look at what the actual scope and process of the investigation was is an outrageous request. If the White House did not limit it, it would further vindicate Kavanaugh to have this confirmed.

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2019, 05:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You doubled down on the use of a legal principle outside of the legal system as a justification of dismissing new scrutiny of the FBI investigation, so commenting on its use is relevant. Also, the NYT and 2020 Dems have been discussed, so I am not sure what you're suggesting. 





Did the FBI find them unwarranted? That's the question that those scrutinizing the process want answered. As I mentioned to you before when you compared this to a conspiracy theory, the White House has the power to set specific limits on the FBI investigation as it was not a criminal investigation but rather an extended background investigation. If they were not authorized to, the FBI would have been unable to speak to anyone outside of Ramirez, Ford, and Judge. It would explain why they opted to not talk to the 25 people Ramirez identified. It also does not suggest there was any determination that her accusations were without merit by the agents investigating it.

NBC reported last year that they were hearing that the investigation had been given a strict limit in its scope, with agents only allowed to talk to specific people. The book the NYT report is adapted from seemingly corroborated this.

Confusing this process with an extensive criminal investigation would certainly make it seem like legal principles should apply, but it was not an actual criminal investigation. 

I don't think having an independent look at what the actual scope and process of the investigation was is an outrageous request. If the White House did not limit it, it would further vindicate Kavanaugh to have this confirmed.

I simply used the turn of phrase as it is mentioned in the Constitution. I freely admitted I was playing loose with the term and trying to preempt the "nu uhs" I knew would follow, when I first used the term by acknowledging this. No one on this side of the keyboard is confused (BTW which is more of an insult: calling someone bullheaded or confused in a discussion?); as I've freely admitted I'm NOT discussing the legality of the issue of double jeopardy; simply the principle as mention in the 5th Amendment. But I will concede so there's a chance of discussing the article . Lets just say it feels like the Dems are wanting to try him for the same offense, given no new information, and understand he's already been confirmed with the information given. Folks can call that whatever makes them feel better. I simply chose to associate it with the principle of Double Jeopardy. 

Let's pretend it's your way: If the White House is within its scope and chose to limit the investigation what "new evidence" has been presented that would/should change their choice to do so? 

Of course the 2020 Dems have been mentioned I just missed what you had to say on their calls for "impeachment" given they are now presented with this information everyone already knew. The only thing new is that a few of the "witnesses" that really meant it now really, really mean it; to include Hernandez's mom. 

SSF keeps pointing to retractions in the article and by whom it was written; I don't even need to do that. It was "Mother Jonesish" as was. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I simply used the turn of phrase as it is mentioned in the Constitution. I freely admitted I was playing loose with the term and trying to preempt the "nu uhs" I knew would follow, when I first used the term by acknowledging this. No one on this side of the keyboard is confused (BTW which is more of an insult: calling someone bullheaded or confused in a discussion?); as I've freely admitted I'm NOT discussing the legality of the issue of double jeopardy; simply the principle as mention in the 5th Amendment. But I will concede so there's a chance of discussing the article . Lets just say it feels like the Dems are wanting to try him for the same offense, given no new information, and understand he's already been confirmed with the information given. Folks can call that whatever makes them feel better. I simply chose to associate it with the principle of Double Jeopardy. 

I would say using an adjective that implies a degree of stupidity by comparing someone to animal is an insult while saying that someone seemed to confuse two concepts is not. I could not call a student "bullheaded" or "pigheaded", but I could certainly say "there seems to be some confusion about what the difference between these two things is". It's silly that I have to respond to this question. Can we not play this game?

The new information is that 25 potential witnesses were not contacted.

Quote:Let's pretend it's your way: If the White House is within its scope and chose to limit the investigation what "new evidence" has been presented that would/should change their choice to do so? 

This is an incredibly loaded question. The point of the investigation should have been to uncover truth, not to appease some GOP senators that were on the fence. If we value truth then we wouldn't have to ask this question as the powers to be would never have limited the investigation.

Quote:Of course the 2020 Dems have been mentioned I just missed what you had to say on their calls for "impeachment" given they are now presented with this information everyone already knew. The only thing new is that a few of the "witnesses" that really meant it now really, really mean it; to include Hernandez's mom.

 
You're fully aware of the fact that I am going to dismiss this blatant attempt to grossly misrepresent what the report allegedly revealed, right? Who is Hernandez?

Quote:SSF keeps pointing to retractions in the article and by whom it was written; I don't even need to do that. It was "Mother Jonesish" as was. 

Cool? 

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2019, 06:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would say using an adjective that implies a degree of stupidity by comparing someone to animal is an insult while saying that someone seemed to confuse two concepts is not. I could not call a student "bullheaded" or "pigheaded", but I could certainly say "there seems to be some confusion about what the difference between these two things is". It's silly that I have to respond to this question. Can we not play this game?

The new information is that 25 potential witnesses were not contacted.




This is an incredibly loaded question. The point of the investigation should have been to uncover truth, not to appease some GOP senators that were on the fence. If we value truth then we wouldn't have to ask this question as the powers to be would never have limited the investigation.



 
You're fully aware of the fact that I am going to dismiss this blatant attempt to grossly misrepresent what the report allegedly revealed, right? Who is Hernandez?





Cool? 

To be fair I feel it's a reach to call either a personal insult especially when framed "In this instance"; it's not like he dismissed you as a troll or anything. I just asked which was worse

That's not new information. Folks were totally aware of who was and wasn't interviewed during the confirmation. to include those that collaborated Ramirez' story. Here's a story from over a year ago stating as such:
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/02/deborah-ramirez-fbi-brett-kavanaugh-investigation/

It's not loaded; it's a simple question. The point of the investigation was to determine the worthiness of a SJ to sit the bench, some just thought it should be a witch hunt.

I simply asked your thoughts on 2020 Dems reaction after this "ground breaking" article. I accidentally said Hernandez instead of Ramirez.

No need for question mark It is cool 

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 07:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be fair I feel it's a reach to call either a personal insult especially when framed "In this instance"; it's not like he dismissed you as a troll or anything. I just asked which was worse

That's not new information. Folks were totally aware of who was and wasn't interviewed during the confirmation. to include those that collaborated Ramirez' story. Here's a story from over a year ago stating as such:
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/02/deborah-ramirez-fbi-brett-kavanaugh-investigation/

It's not loaded; it's a simple question. The point of the investigation was to determine the worthiness of a SJ to sit the bench, some just thought it should be a witch hunt.

I simply asked your thoughts on 2020 Dems reaction after this "ground breaking" article. I accidentally said Hernandez instead of Ramirez.

No need for question mark It is cool 

I was wrong then, the actual new information was that the FBI did not respond to some of the potential witnesses when they contacted them. I still do not understand the need to characterize it as you did.

If you now acknowledge that the scope of the investigation was to determine his background and not to see if he committed that crime, why characterize that as if it exonerated him?

Like I've said multiple times, all of the information revealed regarding the limitations warrants an independent look at what went down. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2019, 07:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was wrong then, the actual new information was that the FBI did not respond to some of the potential witnesses when they contacted them. I still do not understand the need to characterize it as you did.

If you now acknowledge that the scope of the investigation was to determine his background and not to see if he committed that crime, why characterize that as if it exonerated him?

Like I've said multiple times, all of the information revealed regarding the limitations warrants an independent look at what went down. 

That's not new information either. You're just kinda grasping at this point. But I'll refrain from suggesting you are being bullheaded in this instance. Let's just say you've dug your heels in and nothing is going to change that regardless what is presented. I'm sure there's a term for that. Or you could just be confused.

[BmorePat87]

(09-18-2019, 08:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's not new information either. You're just kinda grasping at this point. But I'll refrain from suggesting you are being bullheaded in this instance. Let's just say you've dug your heels in and nothing is going to change that regardless what is presented. I'm sure there's a term for that. Or you could just be confused.

I find it amusing that when I admit that I was wrong to think one piece of information was new, you attack me as being incapable of changing my mind. 

And thanks for not insulting me (though I guess by saying which insult you wouldn't use, you actually did). You've certainly established your intellectual and moral high ground with your in no way ironic assessment of my character. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-18-2019, 09:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I find it amusing that when I admit that I was wrong to think one piece of information was new, you attack me as being incapable of changing my mind. 

And thanks for not insulting me (though I guess by saying which insult you wouldn't use, you actually did). You've certainly established your intellectual and moral high ground with your in no way ironic assessment of my character. 

I guess my best defense is: You didn't change your mind, you just came up with another reason you were right, which was also wrong.

But enough, this back and forth stopped being constructive quite a while back. I simply found the NYT and 2020 Dems' writing and response to this article to stink of trying someone twice for the same thing. You and others disagree and that's fine.

[Dill]

(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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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? 

Double rep for this.  Well sorted. 

The central issue here is why there are so many witnesses who were never contacted by the FBI or, worse, contacted the FBI but were dismissed.

Then after all that, the GOP Senate was positioned to quickly confirm Cavanaugh and claim that a "thorough FBI investigation" had already taken place. Any more complaints were just Dem butthurt efforts to smear a good man.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/kavanaugh-allegations-trump-control-over-fbi-doj-scotus.html
Just to recap then, the Republican Party pushed through a Trump nominee with almost no opportunity for standard vetting, then held a sham hearing at which Christine Blasey Ford was questioned by a sex crimes prosecutor and Brett Kavanaugh screamed at Democratic senators about conspiracy theories and beer. They didn’t call Debbie Ramirez at all, and then they crafted an FBI process, guarded jealously by themselves and the White House to ensure that nobody who knew anything would be interviewed. Barr, who will be hosting a Christmas party at a Trump Hotel, awarded the DOJ lawyers who worked to confirm Trump’s nominee with a prestigious prize. And the Supreme Court, led by two Trump nominees, is on track to make sure that no federal courts stand in the president’s way.

The horrifying thing that was revealed on Sunday was not that the Times botched the delivery of the story, or even that there are now multiple allegations that a Supreme Court justice has harassed women with his exposed penis to keep track of. The horrifying thing is that we knew enough to know all of this last fall—and then, as now, there was no road to accountability, no way to demand a real investigation, no path to delay the process that would end in a lifetime appointment. This week’s revelations prove without a doubt that the crime-fighting, fact-finding, and legislative entities that are supposed to be checks on the president’s power all do his bidding in service of building a court that will do the same.

[Dill]

(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.

You can if the FBI fails to interview already identified witnesses and doesn't return the calls of people claiming to have information about alleged crimes. And then doesn't even interview the prime "accuser." Did they interview the "accused"? That poor man whose reputation was at stake because dozens of people were accusing him of bad behavior?

[jj22]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/19/did-brett-kavanaugh-ask-new-york-times-reporters-lie-their-book-yeah-pretty-much/

More on Kavanaugh's "character" or lack thereof.

[GMDino]

Wonder if this would have changed anything?

During Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Marty Baron, the editor of the Washington Post, talked Bob Woodward out of publishing a story in the Post that would have shown that Kavanaugh is a stone cold liar. It never ran. This according to @benyt. https://t.co/fArIpiXL5I

— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) June 29, 2020