Jump to content

Kavanaugh


9 Nines

Recommended Posts

Just now, Cyrus said:

I do think that there was hesitation to open an investigation (rather than just through Senate procedures) because of the political liability of a Supreme Court nominee under "FBI Investigation". I mentioned this earlier RE: Clinton. John King on CNN recently mentioned this as well (in regards to an FBI Investigation for a nominee during midterm elections).

 

There's certainly a political calculation here.

Besides there is precedence for such an investigation, why have they been unwilling to subpoena witnesses? Why are they refusing to hear the other women? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh Jake please stop talking about stuff you don't understand it makes me cringe. I really can't bear to see someone embarrass themselves like this. 

When the Republican Party sends its people, they’re not sending the best.   They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to Washington.  

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

He should have publically called for the FBI to investigate. It’s really that simple. Everything else falls in place from that single point. The Republicans and Kavanaugh had a chance to make this a clean process and they didn’t. Fair or unfair doesn’t come into play in my mind when they’re the ones running the show and have obfuscated their duty to our country regarding this ordeal at every step. This is a monster of their own creation, and Kavanaugh is included in that for his little stunt with Fox while also not calling for an investigation when there is precedent for such. 

I get it but that is an emotional response. He's not driving this process, the GOP is. I'm sure he was told to not ask for an investigation and now it's blown up. Regardless of what you think of Ford and Kavanaugh, no should dispute Congress is grossly mishandled this. The Dems for leaking her letter and the GOP for not opening up an investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyrus, he wouldn't have been considered "under investigation." This would have been a re-opening of the FBI background check. I think that could have been explained very simply and easily to Americans.

 

"All nominees go through multiple FBI background checks. Kavanaugh is no exception and has gone through 5/6 already. However, it is standard procedure in a nomination process that, if new information comes to light, the FBI is asked to re-open its background check to look into the new information. Due to the importance of this position, and the importance of not rushing to judgment on Mr. Kavanaugh one way or the other, we have decided to do what we have done in every single instance like this and have the FBI re-open its background check. Once that process has been completed, we will move forward with the nomination process."

 

When Anita Hill came forward, the did this with Thomas. Does anyone think of Thomas as having been "under FBI investigation?" No. In fact I bet almost no one knew that happened until it was brought up in the context of this allegation. What we remember about Thomas is the Anita Hill hearing. We don't remember anything about the FBI re-opening its background check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Besides there is precedence for such an investigation, why have they been unwilling to subpoena witnesses? Why are they refusing to hear the other women

I'm not entirely sure, but I can speculate:

 

- Delays leave the possibility of losing control of the Senate if a vote can't be concluded before the midterms. (even if remote). So there is a sense of urgency.

 

- As for the other women, it's not unreasonable to vet their claims prior to some type of open hearing (like today). Based on the transcripts I linked earlier, they are going through the process. The timeline, their conclusions on their credibility, I don't know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldschool said:

I get it but that is an emotional response. He's not driving this process, the GOP is. I'm sure he was told to not ask for an investigation and now it's blown up. Regardless of what you think of Ford and Kavanaugh, no should dispute Congress is grossly mishandled this. The Dems for leaking her letter and the GOP for not opening up an investigation.

That just doesn’t fly. He’s a grown man. He had every opportunity to publically call for an investigation. Instead he went on a Fox interview throwing his virginity and religion into our faces. 

 

Ive said from the beginning whoever outed Ford should be investigated, fired, and sued. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Legaltitan said:

Cyrus, he wouldn't have been considered "under investigation." This would have been a re-opening of the FBI background check. I think that could have been explained very simply and easily to Americans.

  

"All nominees go through multiple FBI background checks. Kavanaugh is no exception and has gone through 5/6 already. However, it is standard procedure in a nomination process that, if new information comes to light, the FBI is asked to re-open its background check to look into the new information. Due to the importance of this position, and the importance of not rushing to judgment on Mr. Kavanaugh one way or the other, we have decided to do what we have done in every single instance like this and have the FBI re-open its background check. Once that process has been completed, we will move forward with the nomination process."

  

When Anita Hill came forward, the did this with Thomas. Does anyone think of Thomas as having been "under FBI investigation?" No. In fact I bet almost no one knew that happened until it was brought up in the context of this allegation. What we remember about Thomas is the Anita Hill hearing. We don't remember anything about the FBI re-opening its background check.

If it's exactly as you describe, then I'm not sure. It's been described endlessly by media pundits and Senators as "opening an investigation". We also live in a different age with different media environments than Anita Hill / Thomas (for better or for worse).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Cyrus said:

If it's exactly as you describe, then I'm not sure. It's been described endlessly by media pundits and Senators as "opening an investigation". We also live in a different age with different media environments than Anita Hill / Thomas (for better or for worse).

The FBI conducts background checks. They can re-open those if asked to. If they re-open the background check, then they "investigate" the new information.  Both sides are grandstanding when they make that process sound like more than it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cyrus said:

I'm not entirely sure, but I can speculate:

 

- Delays leave the possibility of losing control of the Senate if a vote can't be concluded before the midterms. (even if remote). So there is a sense of urgency.

 

- As for the other women, it's not unreasonable to vet their claims prior to some type of open hearing (like today). Based on the transcripts I linked earlier, they are going through the process. The timeline, their conclusions on their credibility, I don't know. 

It’s a shitshow for sure mi amigo. The timeline excuse doesn’t really make much sense seeing as they have another 6 weeks before the election. The Republicans wanted to hammer this through regardless of these women’s accusations. Graham and McConnel have basically admitted as much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cyrus said:

I'm not entirely sure, but I can speculate:

 

- Delays leave the possibility of losing control of the Senate if a vote can't be concluded before the midterms. (even if remote). So there is a sense of urgency.

 

- As for the other women, it's not unreasonable to vet their claims prior to some type of open hearing (like today). Based on the transcripts I linked earlier, they are going through the process. The timeline, their conclusions on their credibility, I don't know. 

This is whats its all about. I think they worry is that if the Dems take the Senate they'll hold the seat open for 2 years in retribution for stealing Garland's seat. Its dirty politics all around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Legaltitan said:

The FBI conducts background checks. They can re-open those if asked to. If they re-open the background check, then they "investigate" the new information.  Both sides are grandstanding when they make that process sound like more than it is.

One other thing.  The FBI takes statements and gathers facts.  They don't make recommendations or draw conclusions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ctm said:

One other thing.  The FBI takes statements and gathers facts.  They don't make recommendations or draw conclusions. 

Another little tidsnip that has went underreported or discussed is the face they’re at the behest of the President on such matters. I wonder why a guy with 13 women accusers wouldn’t want his nominee checked into by the FBI. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

One thing is for sure, we should all be ashamed at what is happening in Washington. It’s time to vote out all of these bastards. 

For the most part I agree with this. Especially the House. However we're not going to reform our institutions by electing the most "politically pure" of each party. Each party loves moderates from the other side, but always feel like their own moderates are somehow betraying them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Another little tidsnip that has went underreported or discussed is the face they’re at the behest of the President on such matters. I wonder why a guy with 13 women accusers wouldn’t want his nominee checked into by the FBI. 

Kavanaugh hasn't called for an investigation either.  I think he may have to explain that in a few minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ctm said:

Kavanaugh hasn't called for an investigation either.  I think he may have to explain that in a few minutes.

OS is one of the more level headed on the board, but his assertion that Kavanaugh was told to keep his mouth shut is true and disgruntling at the same time. The guy is a grown man with a family. He is not suppose to be some political operative who when asked to jump replies how high? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 Nines changed the title to Kavanaugh

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...