• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

Loren Pechtel said:
starwater said:
She has nothing to gain from this. And she remembers facts like she was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under her other clothes. Too much of this rings to be true.
Click to expand...

Things like the bathing suit could simply be made up. To me the smoking gun is the witness that's friendly to the accused. That would be crazy to make up.

Also, claiming it was just rough horseplay is to me basically an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the claim was made by the same person who lied about illegally accessing emails, who perjured themselves over their views on matters of constitutional law, perjured themselves regarding mysterious financial transactions, and who knows what else.
 
Copernicus said:
Axulus said:
Derec said:
Now the accuser says she doesn't want to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee after until FBI investigates.
Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before she will testify: lawyer

That will give an opening to Senate GOP, including waverers like Collins, Flake and Murkowski to go ahead with the confirmation without a hearing.

Time for a lengthy investigation was when the accusation first surfaced in the halls of Congress - which was in July. To wait until the eve of the scheduled confirmation vote and demand a full FBI investigation to be followed by Senate hearings is a blatant delaying tactic that I do not think will succeed.
Click to expand...

It is pure bullshit. July was the time to reveal it. Not September. The Dems are using this woman's pain for their own gain.
Click to expand...

No, Ford's delay and reluctance to come forward is perfectly understandable. Anita Hill came forward earlier, but her testimony was ignored by the Judiciary Committee. Her testimony was also criticized as a last minute exploitation by Senate Democrats, even though the committee members were all aware of the allegations. So they reopened the hearing just to handle her complaint, which ended up changing a number of votes that had previously been declared for Thomas. She was very sincere and credible, yet it wasn't enough to block the appointment. The Senate refused to hear corroborating testimony and they dragged her through the mud, but good. So she stood out as an example of what could happen to a woman who came forward with such a charge against a powerful man.
Click to expand...

Yup. "A little nutty, a little slutty" is what they said about Hill. And as it turned out, everything she said about Thomas was true.
 
Jarhyn said:
Loren Pechtel said:
starwater said:
She has nothing to gain from this. And she remembers facts like she was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under her other clothes. Too much of this rings to be true.
Click to expand...

Things like the bathing suit could simply be made up. To me the smoking gun is the witness that's friendly to the accused. That would be crazy to make up.

Also, claiming it was just rough horseplay is to me basically an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the claim was made by the same person who lied about illegally accessing emails, who perjured themselves over their views on matters of constitutional law, perjured themselves regarding mysterious financial transactions, and who knows what else.
Click to expand...

He was working for judge Kasowicz (sp?), a judge who got away with severe sexual harassment for 30 years. Kavanaugh denied knowing anything about it but both the Dems and the Reps on the committee have received letters from a lawyer who says he has six people who say they complained to Kavanaugh about harassment. Grassley won't allow that to see the light of day.

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyrus-sanai-federal-court-employees-attempted-to-come-forward-to-chuck-grassley-and-dianne-feinstein-neither-responded/
 
southernhybrid said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036



In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to request it. Neither does the Senate.

When the FBI conducts a background investigation of a presidential nominee, it vacuums up all kinds of information about the nominee, including claims from people interviewed by agents, and dumps it into the file. It does not, however, investigate whether or not derogatory information is true — unless it's asked to follow up by the White House. Several current and former Justice Department and FBI officials say this has always been the practice, and there is actually a longstanding formal memorandum of understanding between DOJ and the White House that specifies these limits.
Click to expand...

So, the FBI certainly can investigate Ford's claims but the doofus in the WH has to request them to do so. What are the odds that this will happen?
Click to expand...

Zero.

The malignant narcissist is a serial sexual predator. No way will he ask the FBI to investigate a sexual assault claim against his personal ass-kisser
 
Ann Coulter finally weighs in:

Hmmm. How about: Our REAL problem is that many men have no choice but to rape because they have no opportunities to date attractive women.
Click to expand...


"No choice."
 
RavenSky said:
southernhybrid said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036



In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to request it. Neither does the Senate.

When the FBI conducts a background investigation of a presidential nominee, it vacuums up all kinds of information about the nominee, including claims from people interviewed by agents, and dumps it into the file. It does not, however, investigate whether or not derogatory information is true — unless it's asked to follow up by the White House. Several current and former Justice Department and FBI officials say this has always been the practice, and there is actually a longstanding formal memorandum of understanding between DOJ and the White House that specifies these limits.
Click to expand...

So, the FBI certainly can investigate Ford's claims but the doofus in the WH has to request them to do so. What are the odds that this will happen?
Click to expand...

Zero.

The malignant narcissist is a serial sexual predator. No way will he ask the FBI to investigate a sexual assault claim against his personal ass-kisser
Click to expand...

Something I don't get. Hasn't the FBI already vetted Kavanaugh? Why is a new order necessary? Once an confirmation investigation is closed, it requires a Presidential order to reopen it?
 
Horatio Parker said:
Something I don't get. Hasn't the FBI already vetted Kavanaugh? Why is a new order necessary? Once an confirmation investigation is closed, it requires a Presidential order to reopen it?
Click to expand...

Ya, you'd think that if new relevant information comes to light, such as a sexual assault allegation which they were unaware of during their initial vetting, they'd be able to say "Oh. I guess this investigation was actually incomplete. Let's finish it off based on what's available now".

I get that they can't open investigations based on political considerations, but while the confirmation process is ongoing, their task to provide the Senators with the background check data they use to help them make their decisions should be similarly ongoing when something new related to that becomes available.
 
The FBI reports what people tell them, not go into the veracity of the claims. With Thomas, the White House ordered the FBI to look into it.
 
Sounds like a nasty fraternity full of real peaches, but they were banned much later as in 2011. Not when he was still in it.

Why take what are solid, already persuasive facts in an infographic and crap on it with this misleading portion?

I am getting sick of partisans.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
The FBI reports what people tell them, not go into the veracity of the claims. With Thomas, the White House ordered the FBI to look into it.
Click to expand...

Is that really what they do? Because that's not a background check and it doesn't count as vetting. Getting into the veracity of the claims would be the main reason that you have the FBI do the work instead of putting Kavanagh's brother in charge of making sure that everything's OK with the guy's past.
 
repoman said:
Sounds like a nasty fraternity full of real peaches, but they were banned much later as in 2011. Not when he was still in it.

Why take what are solid, already persuasive facts in an infographic and crap on it with this misleading portion?

I am getting sick of partisans.
Click to expand...

Why pay any attention to the fact that a corrupt party is pushing a misogynist frat boy onto the supreme court when you can just crap on it with microscopic irrelevancies?

You're getting sick of it? I've been completely sick of this kind of sociopathic, entitled, animal aggression partisanship for a long fucking time now.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
The FBI reports what people tell them, not go into the veracity of the claims. With Thomas, the White House ordered the FBI to look into it.
Click to expand...

Is that really what they do? Because that's not a background check and it doesn't count as vetting. Getting into the veracity of the claims would be the main reason that you have the FBI do the work instead of putting Kavanagh's brother in charge of making sure that everything's OK with the guy's past.
Click to expand...
This from a guy who lives a in a country where their top court is lined by people who all have murdered people. At least that is what the Great People of Fox News are saying.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
The FBI reports what people tell them, not go into the veracity of the claims. With Thomas, the White House ordered the FBI to look into it.
Click to expand...

Is that really what they do? Because that's not a background check and it doesn't count as vetting. Getting into the veracity of the claims would be the main reason that you have the FBI do the work instead of putting Kavanagh's brother in charge of making sure that everything's OK with the guy's past.
Click to expand...
This from a guy who lives a in a country where their top court is lined by people who all have murdered people. At least that is what the Great People of Fox News are saying.
Click to expand...

Well, if someone hasn't proven him or herself worthy by feasting on the heart of an enemy, why would anyone trust their ability to make reasonable rulings on legal matters?

That's just common sense. Something that's missing south of the border.
 
repoman said:
Sounds like a nasty fraternity full of real peaches, but they were banned much later as in 2011. Not when he was still in it.

Why take what are solid, already persuasive facts in an infographic and crap on it with this misleading portion?

I am getting sick of partisans.
Click to expand...
Then stop being one?

- - - Updated - - -

Tom Sawyer said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
This from a guy who lives a in a country where their top court is lined by people who all have murdered people. At least that is what the Great People of Fox News are saying.
Click to expand...

Well, if someone hasn't proven him or herself worthy by feasting on the heart of an enemy, why would anyone trust their ability to make reasonable rulings on legal matters?

That's just common sense. Something that's missing south of the border.
Click to expand...
Also, the blood of your enemies is good for growing flowers.....
 
I fear that this Supreme Court already has its quota of former frat boys. The relevant criterion for getting on the Court these days is a desire to recriminalize abortion. Willingness to allow presidents to get away with criminal behavior is a definite plus right now. That can get you added to the list, just as long as you still agree to let the government stop abortions. Kavanaugh will restore the balance between Catholics and non-Catholics on SCOTUS: 6 to 3. Not all are True Catholics, however.
 
Copernicus said:
I fear that this Supreme Court already has its quota of former frat boys. The relevant criterion for getting on the Court these days is a desire to recriminalize abortion. Willingness to allow presidents to get away with criminal behavior is a definite plus right now.
Click to expand...

I think that's right, but you have the order inverted. The biggie is making sure that Cheato is insulated from any repercussions of whatever illegal acts he has committed, will commit or intends to commit. They have plenty more anti-choice options to choose from, but afaik Kavanaugh is the only one who thinks a King Donald would be a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom