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

[Derec]

So, judging from your comment and the fact that you are ignoring his defense of the Chinese Exclusion Act in his emails as well as his defense of racial profiling? I'm not going to dig into references that you have already been provided, nor will I indulge your feigned ignorance. I'll also interpret your defense of him as accepting that he purjored himself in front of congress as fact.

I asked a question. You you have Chinese Exclusion Act in mind - but Chinese is a nationality, not a race. That act did not exclude Koreans or Japanese or Thai. And we must separate a judge voicing an opinion about constitutionality of a law vs. whether he thinks the law is a good idea. Was he really defending that policy or did he just say he thought the law was not unconstitutional?

Here is another question: what was the "purjory"[sic] about?

So if being high on weed is enough justification to SHOOT someone dead in the street, I should probably report you to the FBI with how you think this should be handled.

You are making no sense whatsoever ...

- - - Updated - - -

Assuming this incident happened there is a good chance he has done sexually coercive things again. So, will there be a parade of women coming forward?

Unless Feinstein has binders full of women, I doubt she will be successful in derailing Kavenaugh.

 

[Jarhyn]

I asked a question. You you have Chinese Exclusion Act in mind - but Chinese is a nationality, not a race. That act did not exclude Koreans or Japanese or Thai. And we must separate a judge voicing an opinion about constitutionality of a law vs. whether he thinks the law is a good idea. Was he really defending that policy or did he just say he thought the law was not unconstitutional?

Here is another question: what was the "purjory"[sic] about?


You are making no sense whatsoever ...

- - - Updated - - -

Assuming this incident happened there is a good chance he has done sexually coercive things again. So, will there be a parade of women coming forward?

Unless Feinstein has binders full of women, I doubt she will be successful in derailing Kavenaugh.

Read the transcripts of the emails. They have been linked many times now, and I will not do your ethical responsibility for you. either you have read them and you are merely feigning ignorance or you have not and are just plain ignorant. Neither is acceptable, really. As to your bullshit trying to distract with grammar mistakes, guess what? That's also dishonest. At any rate he not only defends racial profiling *explicitly as a function of race WRT the Chinese exclusion act*, but also current attempts at using race explicitly as a factor in such determinations. You have no ground to stand on.

As to the rest, it's a function of your own twisted logic: if smoking weed is justification for being gunned down in the streets, I can only imagine what you think would be a justified act against a person who committed multiple perjury in congress

 

[Derec]

Read the transcripts of the emails. They have been linked many times now,

Not in this thread afaik.

and I will not do your ethical responsibility for you. either you have read them and you are merely feigning ignorance or you have not and are just plain ignorant. Neither is acceptable, really.

I have not followed the confirmation hearings in any detail. Why is that not acceptable, really? That's why I asked the question.

As to your bullshit trying to distract with grammar mistakes, guess what? That's also dishonest. At any rate he not only defends racial profiling *explicitly as a function of race WRT the Chinese exclusion act*, but also current attempts at using race explicitly as a factor in such determinations. You have no ground to stand on.

Again, Chinese is a nationality, not a race. Can you link to any reputable source (i.e. not DailyKos or similar garbage) on this?

As to the rest, it's a function of your own twisted logic: if smoking weed is justification for being gunned down in the streets, I can only imagine what you think would be a justified act against a person who committed multiple perjury in congress

Where did I say that smoking weed was a justification for shooting somebody in the street? If you are referring to St. Michael of the Blessed Cigarillos, he was shot because he attacked Wilson, not for smoking weed. Smoking weed, however, likely affected his judgment and also was the motivation for robbing the store, as he needed some paper for blunts. But the actual reason he was shot was the attack on Wilson. So unless Kavanaugh attacks a Capitol cop, I do not see any points of comparison.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have not followed the confirmation hearings in any detail. Why is that not acceptable, really? That's why I asked the question.


Again, Chinese is a nationality, not a race. Can you link to any reputable source (i.e. not DailyKos or similar garbage) on this?

As to the rest, it's a function of your own twisted logic: if smoking weed is justification for being gunned down in the streets, I can only imagine what you think would be a justified act against a person who committed multiple perjury in congress

Where did I say that smoking weed was a justification for shooting somebody in the street? If you are referring to St. Michael of the Blessed Cigarillos, he was shot because he attacked Wilson, not for smoking weed. Smoking weed, however, likely affected his judgment and also was the motivation for robbing the store, as he needed some paper for blunts. But the actual reason he was shot was the attack on Wilson. So unless Kavanaugh attacks a Capitol cop, I do not see any points of comparison.

No, I was talking about your most recent smearing of Botham Jean. Or Darren Brown. Or any of the other folks where you bring up the presence of weed as if that justifies a shooting. And as I said, the source is a factually extant email chain that has been linked for you many times. Please quit acting like a fool and trying to feign ignorance.

 

[Derec]

No, I was talking about your most recent smearing of Botham Jean.

I did not smear him. Neither did I say his shooting was justified nor was his shooting in the street. You are o for three.

Darren Brown.

The magician? Huh?

Or any of the other folks where you bring up the presence of weed as if that justifies a shooting. And as I said, the source is a factually extant email chain that has been linked for you many times. Please quit acting like a fool and trying to feign ignorance.

I did not bring up the presence of weed re Jean. RavenSky did and I specifically said that I don't think it had anything to do with the shooting. But thanks for playing.

 

[Underseer]

Sounds like Kavanaugh has broken an awful lot of laws. He shouldn't be put on the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton was impeached and lost his law license for far less than this.

 

[Derec]

Sounds like Kavanaugh has broken an awful lot of laws. He shouldn't be put on the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton was impeached and lost his law license for far less than this.

Clinton's women (including Juanita Broadrick who accused him of rape) were all known by name. And he had sexual relation with one of them while in the (oval) office. All we have here is an anonymous letter for something that may or may not have happened 35 years ago.

Not that Slick Willie should have been impeached, but the situations are hardly comparable.

 

[Derec]

Word on the street is an alleged attempted rape while in High School.
Problem with this is that short of any evidence, the time that has passed since then, and the actual lack of a rape (alleged) provides a he said she said accusation. Story over, regardless if it is true.

And "she" in "she said" is anonymous. It's not like a woman came forward and was willing to testify before the Senate like Anita "traumatized 4 life by a coke can joke" Hill.

“We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983,” the letter said. “For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect. We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time.”

WHAT?!

So we go from, this can never be cooberated without the accomplice to WTF?! They had a letter signed by 60 people that knew Kavanaugh up to 35 years ago?! for an allegation that came out yesterday?
Talk about giving a scandal wheels!

Apparently the letter surfaced in July at the latest. DiFi got it in late July and sat on it until now. Some on the left (including her more lefty challenger in the election) are already criticizing her for that.
’Failure of leadership:’ De León slams Feinstein for holding back Kavanaugh allegations
Dianne Feinstein silenced Kavanaugh’s accuser to protect the status quo
Feinstein's challenger Ponce de Leon (or something) evidently can't count. Late July to mid September is almost two months, not almost three months.


And the letter was first sent to Anna Eshoo, a congresswoman from California, and only then made it to DiFi later.

In any case, plenty of time for GOP to find out about the letter and mount a defense.

 

[blastula]

So we go from, this can never be cooberated without the accomplice to WTF?! They had a letter signed by 60 people that knew Kavanaugh up to 35 years ago?! for an allegation that came out yesterday?

Talk about giving a scandal wheels!

I also find this curious. Quite bizarre.

the gop doth protest too much.

 

[blastula]

The accuser,, Christine Blasey Ford, has come forward. Her account is credible. I wonder if Kavanaugh was ever asked by the FBI about it.

California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault - Washington Post

 

[ZiprHead]

Sad that this story is getting so much more traction than the perjury he committed and his highly partisan actions during the Clinton investigation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sad that this story is getting so much more traction than the perjury he committed and his highly partisan actions during the Clinton investigation.

The ball is in Kavanaugh’s court to specifically deny this specific person’s claims. If he denies it and no one else steps forward, he is in. If he confirms it, his judicial career is over and he’ll need to wait a few years before having a show on Fox. If that happens, the Republicans would need to find a replacement nomination and confirm him in record time to beat the election.

 

[whollygoats]

Sad that this story is getting so much more traction than the perjury he committed and his highly partisan actions during the Clinton investigation.

The ball is in Kavanaugh’s court to specifically deny this specific person’s claims. If he denies it and no one else steps forward, he is in. If he confirms it, his judicial career is over and he’ll need to wait a few years before having a show on Fox. If that happens, the Republicans would need to find a replacement nomination and confirm him in record time to beat the election.

Election is not the deadline. The new Congressional session is the deadline. The old Congress can attempt to jam through all manner of garbage in its last hours. I believe that is still long after the election day, like months. Marbury vs. Madison, anybody?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sad that this story is getting so much more traction than the perjury he committed and his highly partisan actions during the Clinton investigation.

The ball is in Kavanaugh’s court to specifically deny this specific person’s claims. If he denies it and no one else steps forward, he is in. If he confirms it, his judicial career is over and he’ll need to wait a few years before having a show on Fox. If that happens, the Republicans would need to find a replacement nomination and confirm him in record time to beat the election.

Election is not the deadline. The new Congressional session is the deadline. The old Congress can attempt to jam through all manner of garbage in its last hours. I believe that is still long after the election day, like months. Marbury vs. Madison, anybody?

That is a good point.

 

[Derec]

The ball is in Kavanaugh’s court to specifically deny this specific person’s claims.

He did. So did his friend Mark Judge. So it's "he said, he said, she said" at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

The accuser,, Christine Blasey Ford, has come forward. Her account is credible. I wonder if Kavanaugh was ever asked by the FBI about it.

Why do you think it's credible? There is no corroborating evidence and she can't even remember when the alleged assault supposedly happened.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

At first I was very skeptical of this story, and then I noticed a couple of things. Emphasis added.

...

...
The classmate who was reportedly with Kavanaugh said he has “no recollection” of the incident.

CNN also reported that Kavanaugh allegedly tried to remove the woman’s clothes and that she later sought medical treatment:
Both men were drunk, she said, and Kavanaugh attempted to remove her clothes.
At one point, Kavanaugh was on top of her laughing as the other male in the room periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.
...

This does sound compatible with closeted Republican politicians and their I do not recall, Senator defenses.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The ball is in Kavanaugh’s court to specifically deny this specific person’s claims.

He did. So did his friend Mark Judge. So it's "he said, he said, she said" at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

The accuser,, Christine Blasey Ford, has come forward. Her account is credible. I wonder if Kavanaugh was ever asked by the FBI about it.

Why do you think it's credible? There is no corroborating evidence and she can't even remember when the alleged assault supposedly happened.

Actually Kavanaugh denied the anonymous victim, not this named person. The friend used the ‘no recollection’ response which is lawyer speak. I can say quite truly, I never tried to sexually assault anyone in high school. I wouldn’t need to hedge that statement.

The credibility part comes from the fact she raised this to a psychologist 6 years ago.

 

[blastula]

The ball is in Kavanaugh’s court to specifically deny this specific person’s claims.

He did. So did his friend Mark Judge. So it's "he said, he said, she said" at this point.

Kavanaugh is a proven liar, and she's not, so she's ahead on that already.

The accuser,, Christine Blasey Ford, has come forward. Her account is credible. I wonder if Kavanaugh was ever asked by the FBI about it.

Why do you think it's credible? There is no corroborating evidence and she can't even remember when the alleged assault supposedly happened.

She told a therapist years ago, and the therapist produced the notes to prove it. She also voluntarily took a lie detector test and passed.

And the friend has even written about his drunken escapades from high school, lending even more credence to her account.

Kavanaugh did it, and now he's lying again. Not that it will matter. He should be bounced for all the lying, at the least.

 

[steve_bank]

Anyone who at this point believes anything at face value someone from congress says is not playing with a full deck.

 

[Derec]

Actually Kavanaugh denied the anonymous victim, not this named person.

The two are the same. She is the author of the anonymous letter Feinstein held on to for a month and a half.

The friend used the ‘no recollection’ response which is lawyer speak.

So?

I can say quite truly, I never tried to sexually assault anyone in high school. I wouldn’t need to hedge that statement.

Me neither. That doesn't mean either of us could not be falsely accused.

The credibility part comes from the fact she raised this to a psychologist 6 years ago.

Without naming him. She could have been referring to somebody else and only made it about Kavenaugh after the fact, to derail his nomination. Or she could have had him as a target that far ago, as he has been a federal appeals court judge since 2006. Or, of course, she could be telling the truth. But there is no way to know if she is.

What I find especially troubling with her claims is that she doesn't know exactly when or where the alleged assault occurred. That's a pretty significant gap in memory, don't you think?