Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 848

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Democrats have been completely awful and untrustworthy. They wail and gnash their teeth about a further FBI background check but they fail to make any efforts, even behind closed doors, to investigate. They should have referred the matter to the FBI and the Chairman of the Committee right away. There is no excuse for that failure.

Should they make efforts behind doors to investigate? Yes.

Should they have referred the matter to the FBI and Chairman of the Committee right away? Yes.

Should the FBI be allowed to investigate now? Yes, I don’t see a good reason not to. Seems like the only excuse they can find for not allowing the FBI to investigate now is the fact that the Dems should have given to the FBI sooner. Well the question isn’t really what should have happened earlier, it’s what should happen now. I see no reason to not let the FBI investigate. If there is (other than that should have been done earlier), pleaese tell me.

The FBI would do what the Committee is responsible and able to do: follow leads and interview witnesses. The essential role of the FBI in a nomination process is to identify potential issues for Congress. I don’t know whether the FBI could subpoena witnesses who do not want to testify in this kind of situation, but the Committee can. The Democrats aim is to (at least) delay and that is what Republicans are fighting against.

But if a delay is what is needed to be able to investigate these claims thoroughly and justly, why not do it?

That is why Grassley isn’t subpoenaing witnesses. It’s why the White House isn’t asking for a halt in the process to allow the FBI to take over. There is the idea that even if Kavanaugh is innocent (as Republicans are apt to believe) then allowing a drawn-out investigation about an alleged event 36 years ago is unlikely to clear Kavanaugh. So for them it’s just a big waste of time.

I don’t see how investigating finding out more info about these claims is waste. Maybe it won’t uncover anything new or important, but maybe it will. I say in the interest of justice, do it.

The idea today was allowing the only potentially credible witness against him to say everything she wanted and to hear Kavanaugh’s denial to provide a opportunity to evaluate credibility. If there were any other solid evidence or witness to back up the claims, that would have been presented too.

Why about this other guy that was there. Shouldn’t he testify before they vote?

The FBI investigation idea does look tempting, with the hope that there is some evidence somewhere that would definitely resolve the issue one way or another. Right now that looks unlikely.

I say in the interest of justice, do it.

What about the other accusations? shouldn’t they be investigated too?

Questions lurking in the background include: why would someone with as an otherwise impeccable background have been a violent sexual maniac that one time?

It might be more than one time. There two other women accusing him of wrong doing.

If the allegation is true, how does that relate to who he has been in the 35 years since and his qualifications for the job on the Court?

If the allegation is true, he is guilty of sexual assault. In the minds of many that would automatically disqualify him. I’d be very uncomfortable having a someone guilty of sexual assault on the US Supreme Court. Maybe he has changed since then, but maybe he hasn’t. He was never brought to justice for it and this woman suffered serious mental trauma and had to have therapy. Can we really find no one more suitable? (this is all assuming the allegation is true).

You return repeatedly to the idea of justice but the FBI investigation would not be a criminal investigation and would yield no conclusion. The Senate is charged with evaluation the nominee, interviewing witnesses, and looking at evidence. If the nomination is to fail it will be in the Senate unless Trump withdraws the nomination.

Criminal charges could be pursued in Maryland, if anyone were interested in “justice” as that has been traditionally defined. Instead we have his name dragged through the mud on charges that are very difficult to disprove even if false. Until and unless Maryland pursues charges and convicts him, he is not someone guilty of sexual assault.

SilverWook said:

I thought she first identified him in private therapy sessions in 2012?

She says she did (her husband says she did also) but the name doesn’t appear in the therapist’s notes. So we don’t have independent corroboration from 2012, only the current insistence that she did name him.

Mrebo said:

Kavanaugh’s friend apparently did swear under penalty of perjury.

It was a letter to the committee, not a sworn affidavit. There are no penalties for lying in a simple letter, regardless of the identity of the addressee. Well, okay, there’s wire fraud, but you know what I mean.

EDIT: Looks like Judge’s letter included some text at the end about “I do this under penalty of felony” which I guess sounded more formal to him or something, but it’s not a legally meaningful statement. And if he consulted a lawyer (he did in general, but not sure about this particular text), he’d know that. There’s no penalty.

Ford’s friend recalls no such party, not sure why that would change.

Under penalty of perjury, lots of people change their tune. And with a skilled interviewer, useful minor corroborating facts can still be gleaned even from reluctant witnesses, ones that might have been intentionally or accidentally left out of a sworn affidavit.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve read that Ford never named Kavanaugh until his nomination. By degrees, that’s very late in the game. I think her husband says she used his name with him, but apparently not in front of the therapist. She only claimed an assault previously. It doesn’t corroborate her specific claims terribly well. Certainly, we’d want something more than that.

I think you just corrected yourself a few sentences later, so I’ll just let that go. But yes, trauma victims remember some things explicitly and some things for crap, that’s the whole hippocampus discussion again, and it’s extremely common for sexual assault victims to delay reporting. And usually that’s where it begins and ends… when there aren’t other witnesses to help fill in gaps.

I have no idea if Gorsuch did something inappropriate in high school.

I’m sure he did do something inappriopriate… but I doubt he did something criminal. We’re not talking about whoopie cushions under the headmaster’s cushion here.

It does appear that Gorsuch was a more buttoned-up young man.

He could have been a drummer for a Death Metal band. It’s not about how many piercings he had, it’s if he violated any laws. Buttoned-up young men are no less likely to commit crime than any other young men. But they might not be caught as much.

EDIT: And don’t forget the Democrats filibustered Gorsuch, which is less than “sailing.” I guess he was so bad that it’s good they didn’t hold off on filibustering, eh?

Filibustering is sailing when it’s toothless. The point of filibustering is to express extreme political difference, not as a means of investigating criminal acts–if you want to do the latter, a hearing is a good place to start. So the Dems effectively said they disagreed very strongly with Gorsuch’s politics and gave no indication he committed any crimes. That’s not really a surprise.

https://twitter.com/JesseBrown/status/1045321181430239232

Anti-free speech activist Jordan Peterson also threatened to sue “Canadaland” if they dared to publish an article about his professional misconduct.

That doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve left friends’ houses before and no one noticed.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:
I have no idea if Gorsuch did something inappropriate in high school.

I’m sure he did do something inappriopriate…

What makes you so certain? Had there been some sort of accusation made against him that I don’t know about?

I was talking about the lightness of the term “inappropriate”. “Inappropriate” is a term for laughing during a serious event, or wearing shorts on a cold day, or failing to remember an anniversary. I’m sure he did that, because he’s human. Ever met a human who never did anything inappropriate? What about a high school boy?

“Inappropriate” is an extraordinarily minimizing term to use for sexual assault. Criminal works better. Monstrous also fits the bill pretty well. What I’m saying is I’m pretty sure Gorsuch was not a criminal monster in high school, but I’m equally sure he was inappropriate… and talking about inappropriateness is very much beside the point. Bank robbery isn’t “inappropriate withdrawal of funds”. It’s a crime.

SilverWook said:

What could anyone gain from putting their life and that of their family in jeopardy on a false accusation? Ford is going to be watching her back possibly the rest of her life. The world is full of crazies who hold grudges, unfortunately.

Money? I mean if you’re the type to believe this is a set-up it’s probably pretty easy to believe there’s a big chunk of cash waiting for her somewhere.

I mean her freaking GoFundMe alone is almost up to $480,000. That’s a pretty strong motive by itself.

And who knows what other secret account might also be waiting for her in some dark corner. I mean I don’t know at all if she’s telling the truth? But people have lied for a hell of a lot less.

https://ca.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford

Edit: Quote from site

"Important Update – We want to be very clear that the money raised from this campaign is going directly to the Ford Family. They are the only authorized beneficiary. We have worked closely with GoFundMe to ensure this. This campaign is a great way to contribute directly to the family to cover the immediate security and personal expenses they are incurring.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for your support! "

We’re probably seeing the last generation where some sort of tangible evidence of one’s unsavory past is hard to come by. Future politicians and would be nominees are going to have their digital and social media skeletons to deal with. But the internet seldom forgets.

I support citizens confronting their bought-and-paid-for, fraudulent representatives.

Uproar, furor, pandemonium! There’s a credible accusation of a serious crime, complete with a witness and some corroborating accounts. And… an independent nonpartisan investigation is performed before anyone is convicted or vindicated!

It’s how the party of law and order does things. And also Jeff Flake, apparently. I honestly didn’t think he’d do it.

Conservatives have little to worry about. It’s like a one-week delay and it also lets Kav say he’s been cleared of wrongdoing by the FBI (assuming they do), just like Hillary was able to do with her e-mails after the FBI cleared her.

pleasehello said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I support citizens confronting their bought-and-paid-for, fraudulent representatives.

I doubt that the lady who confronted him is from Arizona.

His votes still have the power to disrupt all of our lives.