Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[*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.