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

[ZiprHead]

A comment seen on Facebook: It's amazing how it took the FBI only three or four days to find the suspected bomber but couldn't find out ANYTHING on boofing, devils triangle, calendar proof, or sexual assault on Kavanaugh!!!!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A comment seen on Facebook: It's amazing how it took the FBI only three or four days to find the suspected bomber but couldn't find out ANYTHING on boofing, devils triangle, calendar proof, or sexual assault on Kavanaugh!!!!

Replace with "weren't allowed to".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A comment seen on Facebook: It's amazing how it took the FBI only three or four days to find the suspected bomber but couldn't find out ANYTHING on boofing, devils triangle, calendar proof, or sexual assault on Kavanaugh!!!!

Replace with "weren't allowed to".

Yup. And that's why it is a scam.

 

[Trausti]

A comment seen on Facebook: It's amazing how it took the FBI only three or four days to find the suspected bomber but couldn't find out ANYTHING on boofing, devils triangle, calendar proof, or sexual assault on Kavanaugh!!!!

Replace with "weren't allowed to".

Yup. And that's why it is a scam.

Yeah, seven FBI investigations going back to 1993 are not enough!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Even Angra admitted he perjured himself.

 

[Trausti]

Even Angra admitted he perjured himself.

No. But at least you're passed the Kavanaugh was the ringleader of a gang raping, punch spiking, girl harassing, syndicate. You're making progress, Don2.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Even Angra admitted he perjured himself.

First, why "Even Angra"?

I go with the information I have, and change my mind when I find new information. That's the rational way of assessing matters. The religious/ideological way is to improper.

Second, and to be clear, I did not say he lied about "Devil's Triangle". I don't know about that. I said he lied about the meaning of "boofing".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. And that's why it is a scam.

Yeah, seven FBI investigations going back to 1993 are not enough!

You think background checks are perfect?!

They got new data, they should have checked it out. They were only allowed to pretend to investigate, not to do a meaningful investigation.

 

[angelo]

I haven't seen, heard from, heard about, or otherwise had any contact with that person. If he is still out there alive in the world, it does not affect me in particular, and I doubt he has had much of a chance to hurt anyone else. I am at a certain state of equilibrium where I don't think about it more than once or twice a month on average, more when there are national discussions about rapists, and less when there are not, but it is generally something I can handle with some measure of detached cynicism. In short, I am at equilibrium.

Similarly, Ford spent her life with relatively little contact of any kind involving Bart O'. She may have occasionally heard about him. She may have even kept tabs on him; I don't really know. But it wasn't like other people were walking up to her every day and talking about the guy. He wasn't in a position to really affect or impact her with his mere existence. It was something she could likely handle with some manner of detached cynicism.

But I can imagine what kind of effect it would have on ME if my rapist were suddenly cast in a popular movie. I would have to see his face and remember. I couldn't just brush it off as a thing that happened a lifetime ago. It would be something continuing to happen NOW. And this is what it is for Ford: a wound mostly healed over, painful, but of a sort of pain that is familiar and even comfortable in that familiarity, but which is now torn open and PRODDED every day by this sudden exposure and regular reminder of his existence, success, an his actions against her.

It is a broken equilibrium, and with a lifetime appointment, it is an equilibrium that may never for her be restored.

If she's telling the truth about what happened. If not she has received her ten minutes of fame and may fade from view.

And then we get back to the ethical imperative here that you consistently fail on: trust but verify: trust her to the extent of verifying her claims, of which there are a number of material elements which can be verified enough for reasonable confidence in her testimony, which even if not a strong enough standard to convict should definitely produce enough doubt in K's worthiness for the position he is in, and thus a strong enough standard to impeach, even if not to imprison.

Again. Where is the principle of what democracy in the Western World was built on, namely, Innocence until proven guilty!

Any person could slander any other with impunity by declaring another person touched my bum 40 years ago, then it's up to the accused to prove their innocence!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Even Angra admitted he perjured himself.

First, why "Even Angra"?

I go with the information I have, and change my mind when I find new information. That's the rational way of assessing matters. The religious/ideological way is to improper.

Second, and to be clear, I did not say he lied about "Devil's Triangle". I don't know about that. I said he lied about the meaning of "boofing".

In other words, yes, you admitted it.

 

[Jarhyn]

And then we get back to the ethical imperative here that you consistently fail on: trust but verify: trust her to the extent of verifying her claims, of which there are a number of material elements which can be verified enough for reasonable confidence in her testimony, which even if not a strong enough standard to convict should definitely produce enough doubt in K's worthiness for the position he is in, and thus a strong enough standard to impeach, even if not to imprison.

Again. Where is the principle of what democracy in the Western World was built on, namely, Innocence until proven guilty!

Any person could slander any other with impunity by declaring another person touched my bum 40 years ago, then it's up to the accused to prove their innocence!

No. It isn't. The standard in democracy for removing or limiting rights is "innocent until proven guilty". But it is not a RIGHT to be a Supreme Court Justice.

If you claim that someone touched your bum 40 years ago, you would be expected to answer questions about that incident: where it happened, when it happened, the events surrounding it. These are reasonable questions. Then, people can look at those claims and find out if there is positive evidence for THEM being there, for you being there, and the events described as adjacent to the assault as having happened, and for the character in the perpetrator to match your contemporary description of the event.

And if, after this comparison between story and reality pans out, yes, they should forever have some doubt cast upon them when dealing with situations where the existence of that doubt into their character casts doubts on their fittedness for other things.

Because we aren't talking about jailing or fining people, Innocent until Proven Guilty is not in play.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Even Angra admitted he perjured himself.

First, why "Even Angra"?

I go with the information I have, and change my mind when I find new information. That's the rational way of assessing matters. The religious/ideological way is to improper.

Second, and to be clear, I did not say he lied about "Devil's Triangle". I don't know about that. I said he lied about the meaning of "boofing".

In other words, yes, you admitted it.

No, that is not "in other words", because:

1. I did not "admit" it. That implies a concession. But I was not claiming that he had not lied - in fact, I was already saying he probably had -, and I wasn't even saying that there wasn't conclusive evidence - I just hadn't seen it yet. That is not a concession.

2. I'm explaining that I did not say he lied about "Devil's Triangle" (which is what Trausti was arguing against in the post you replied to with the "even Angra" claim), which clearly is not remotely suggested by the words "you admitted it".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...I already said he lied.

This.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

...I already said he lied.

This.

This.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...I already said he lied.

This.

This.

I said he lied about the meaning of "boofing".

And his explanation was to the Senate under oath. Ergo, he perjured himself.

Therefore, even YOU, admitted he perjured himself.

BUT the distinction over definitely lying and very probably lying is a distinction without a practicable difference anyway. If he very probably lied about Devil's Triangle and other things as well, then the answer is STILL for the Senate to investigate him for perjury.

That means
(a) lying about boofing ==> Senate ought to investigate him for perjury
(b) most probably lying about Devil's Triange ==> Senate ought to investigate him for perjury
(c) most probably lying about Renate excuse ==> Senate ought to investigate him for perjury
(d) all his other most probably lies ==> same thing.

Since the Senate did not investigate him for all his lying, the proceeding was a scam, just like I wrote before.

Now that you know, please stop arguing just to argue.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And his explanation was to the Senate under oath. Ergo, he perjured himself.

Sure. But I did not say that happened with respect to "Devil's Triangle".

Therefore, even YOU, admitted he perjured himself.

First, that does not follow. I did not admit it, since I was not implying, defending, arguing for, etc., the position that he did not commit perjury. So, it is not an admission.

Second, the "even" is unjustified, due to its negatively loaded content.

BUT the distinction over definitely lying and very probably lying is a distinction without a practicable difference anyway. If he very probably lied about Devil's Triangle and other things as well, then the answer is STILL for the Senate to investigate him for perjury.

It would be an important difference, but I didn't say he very probably lied about Devil's Triangle!
I don't know about that one.

Now that you know, please stop arguing just to argue.

I'm not doing that. I'm arguing to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and myself from negative claims and implications about me. I thought I was done with this thread, and that was a relief frankly, but came back to set the record straight after your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself."

 

[Jarhyn]

Sure. But I did not say that happened with respect to "Devil's Triangle".


First, that does not follow. I did not admit it, since I was not implying, defending, arguing for, etc., the position that he did not commit perjury. So, it is not an admission.

Second, the "even" is unjustified, due to its negatively loaded content.

BUT the distinction over definitely lying and very probably lying is a distinction without a practicable difference anyway. If he very probably lied about Devil's Triangle and other things as well, then the answer is STILL for the Senate to investigate him for perjury.

It would be an important difference, but I didn't say he very probably lied about Devil's Triangle!
I don't know about that one.

Now that you know, please stop arguing just to argue.

I'm not doing that. I'm arguing to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and myself from negative claims and implications about me. I thought I was done with this thread, and that was a relief frankly, but came back to set the record straight after your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself."

You admitted he perjured himself. That's really the only important part. You "coming back to defend the character of your post" is shaped like a rank red herring. He lied in a senate hearing even according to you, he was under oath, and so the senate hearing was a sham.

Either speak to whether you believe he lied in the hearing -- and you admitted that he lied in the hearing so you probably shouldn't speak to that -- or to the relevance of perjury in a judicial confirmation, or to whether the senate investigated whether he lied. Nothing else will leverage you against this fact

IF you believe he lied, AT ANY POINT in the hearing, YOU believe he perjored himself
IF you then believe that perjury is not acceptable behavior for a judge, YOU believe BK is not worthy to be a judge.
IF you then believe BK is not worthy to be a judge, YOU believe the senate hearing was derelict in its duty to reject him.

So IF you believe that he lied, THEN you (ought) believe that senate hearing was derelict in its duty reject him.

So, DO you so believe that the senate was derelict in their duties?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You admitted he perjured himself. That's really the only important part. You "coming back to defend the character of your post" is shaped like a rank red herring. He lied in a senate hearing even according to you, he was under oath, and so the senate hearing was a sham.

First, it is not the case that I admitted he committed perjury. I reckoned he did, on the basis of the available evidence. It was not an admission.

Second, I did not say I came back to "defend the character of your post". That is a misquote. Again, I'm arguing to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and myself from negative claims and implications about me. I thought I was done with this thread, and that was a relief frankly, but came back to set the record straight after your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself."

Third, my coming back is not a red herring. What is important to me now (the reason I came back) is precisely what I said.

Fourth, how was the hearing a "sham"?

Either speak to whether you believe he lied in the hearing -- and you admitted that he lied in the hearing so you probably shouldn't speak to that -- or to the relevance of perjury in a judicial confirmation, or to whether the senate investigated whether he lied. Nothing else will leverage you against this fact.

I reckoned he lied. I did not admit that. And the claim that I should not speak to that is unwarranted and false.

IF you believe he lied, AT ANY POINT in the hearing, YOU believe he perjored himself
IF you then believe that perjury is not acceptable behavior for a judge, YOU believe BK is not worthy to be a judge.
IF you then believe BK is not worthy to be a judge, YOU believe the senate hearing was derelict in its duty to reject him.

So IF you believe that he lied, THEN you (ought) believe that senate hearing was derelict in its duty reject him.

So, DO you so believe that the senate was derelict in their duties?

The Senate is not a person. It has no moral duties. Individual Senators do. Whether they behaved immorally depends on the Senator. I would need conclusive evidence in each case. Did they all know that "boofing" not mean that? What would have happened if they had voted differently, in terms of consequences, and in their assessment? Probably, most behaved immorally, for different reasons.
If you mean legal duties, I do not know of any law that says Senators must not confirm candidates that commit perjury. If you know of one, please let me know, but as far as I can tell, there was no law breaking on the part of any of the Senators.

 

[Jarhyn]

First, it is not the case that I admitted he committed perjury. I reckoned he did, on the basis of the available evidence. It was not an admission.

Second, I did not say I came back to "defend the character of your post". That is a misquote. Again, I'm arguing to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and myself from negative claims and implications about me. I thought I was done with this thread, and that was a relief frankly, but came back to set the record straight after your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself."

Third, my coming back is not a red herring. What is important to me now (the reason I came back) is precisely what I said.

Fourth, how was the hearing a "sham"?


I reckoned he lied. I did not admit that. And the claim that I should not speak to that is unwarranted and false.

IF you believe he lied, AT ANY POINT in the hearing, YOU believe he perjored himself
IF you then believe that perjury is not acceptable behavior for a judge, YOU believe BK is not worthy to be a judge.
IF you then believe BK is not worthy to be a judge, YOU believe the senate hearing was derelict in its duty to reject him.

So IF you believe that he lied, THEN you (ought) believe that senate hearing was derelict in its duty reject him.

So, DO you so believe that the senate was derelict in their duties?

The Senate is not a person. It has no moral duties. Individual Senators do. Whether they behaved immorally depends on the Senator. I would need conclusive evidence in each case. Did they all know that "boofing" not mean that? What would have happened if they had voted differently, in terms of consequences, and in their assessment? Probably, most behaved immorally, for different reasons.
If you mean legal duties, I do not know of any law that says Senators must not confirm candidates that commit perjury. If you know of one, please let me know, but as far as I can tell, there was no law breaking on the part of any of the Senators.

So, in other words, NO, you will not cop to accepting that his likely perjury and the failure to investigate it is a severe dereliction of duty.

Or in other words, you are dissembling and deflecting from your own failure to expect ethical behavior when it is a republican doing it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

First, it is not the case that I admitted he committed perjury. I reckoned he did, on the basis of the available evidence. It was not an admission.

I

The Senate is not a person. It has no moral duties. Individual Senators do. Whether they behaved immorally depends on the Senator. I would need conclusive evidence in each case. Did they all know that "boofing" not mean that? What would have happened if they had voted differently, in terms of consequences, and in their assessment? Probably, most behaved immorally, for different reasons.

Second, I did not say I came back to "defend the character of your post". That is a misquote. Again, I'm arguing to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and myself from negative claims and implications about me. I thought I was done with this thread, and that was a relief frankly, but came back to set the record straight after your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself."

Third, my coming back is not a red herring. What is important to me now (the reason I came back) is precisely what I said.

Fourth, how was the hearing a "sham"?

I reckoned he lied. I did not admit that. And the claim that I should not speak to that is unwarranted and false.

If you mean legal duties, I do not know of any law that says Senators must not confirm candidates that commit perjury. If you know of one, please let me know, but as far as I can tell, there was no law breaking on the part of any of the Senators.

Holy Bejeebus, you already lost this debate you created once you admitted he lied, thereby implicitly admitting he perjured himself. Now you're just arguing to argue. Questions. Semantic Quibbling. It's all quite obvious to any rational reader why the hearing was a scam. Just stop already. This is embarrassing to watch.