Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

[kpt018]

No, all of us heard Ford's testimony. That's what investigators had to go on, and they attempted to find any evidence that would corroborate that testimony. They failed to find any after a thorough investigation. In fact, the FBI had more time but simply didn't need it. The only verifiable claims Ford made were related to the 4 people she said were at the alleged party.

You are calling the investigation incomplete. So I'm asking you what was lacking. What stones did they refuse to look under?

See, this is the point of my posting itt today. The investigation was thorough in terms of a background check but not in any other sense. Background checks are limited in scope and the WH put restrictions on it.

And the question is dishonest and for appearances. I already answered that (the results are not public knowledge).

Yea he indicted some Russian trolls and Manafort for some shit completely unrelated to Trump. Well worth the ten million in tax dollars we've spent on this clown.

Oh, so nailing criminals doesn't count if it's not Trump? That's a really weird way to view the world and I'm sorry to hear that. Also technical correction, several associates of Trump's were nailed.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

See, this is the point of my posting itt today. The investigation was thorough in terms of a background check but not in any other sense. Background checks are limited in scope and the WH put restrictions on it.

And the question is dishonest and for appearances. I already answered that (the results are not public knowledge).



Oh, so nailing criminals doesn't count if it's not Trump? That's a really weird way to view the world and I'm sorry to hear that. Also technical correction, several associates of Trump's were nailed.

So you think the investigation was incomplete, but you can't think of anything they didn't look into? OK.

 

[kpt018]

So you think the investigation was incomplete, but you can't think of anything they didn't look into? OK.

No, Wray, the head of the FBI explained that it is a limited scope background investigation and that is different than a criminal investigation.

You are so dishonest.

 

[kpt018]

You know @IngaVovchanchyn, you may be polite but I'd rather you take a nastier tone and actually discuss things in good faith instead of politeness coupled with dishonesty.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No, Wray, the head of the FBI explained that it is a limited scope background investigation and that is different than a criminal investigation.

You are so dishonest.

I'm not being dishonest at all. Of course it isn't a criminal investigation. No charges were being pressed. Is that your complaint? That it wasn't a criminal investigation?

Given the testimony Dr. Ford gave, which I assume you're familiar with, what details do you think the FBI should have or even could have attempted to verify, beyond the obvious step of interviewing people who Ford claimed were present? We know that the FBI did that very thing and interviewed everyone Ford named as being there, which was all that they could have done to corroborate Ford's testimony. So what else do you think they should have done?

Of course the FBI investigation was limited in scope. But since that scope was wide enough to corroborate any verifiable details given by Ford, what exactly is the problem? What would a wider scope have allowed them to do that they didn't do, in your eyes?

 

[Arkain2K]

Using the ignore feature is the most beta shit I can think of.

Nah, that would be repeatedly and passionately pumping out an insane amount of "This is it!" bullshit straight out of the Twilight Zone and then quickly tucked tail as soon as confronted with an actual bet to back it all up. That was hands-down the most beta shit I've witnessed in this thread.

This place is filled with idiots for perspective.

Oh that's for damned certain: if anyone needs to find a retarded quote from the liberal faction of the WR for their sig, this place would be an absolute gold mine.

Senator Collins once said "When Passions are most inflamed that Fairness is most in jeopardy". I think it also applies to Logic and Common Sense as well.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You know @IngaVovchanchyn, you may be polite but I'd rather you take a nastier tone and actually discuss things in good faith instead of politeness coupled with dishonesty.

Thank you for saying I am being polite.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous here, though we do seem to be talking past each other. You keep complaining that the FBI investigation was limited in scope, but to me, that limitation was inherent in the nature of the allegations they were investigating.

 

[kpt018]

I'm not being dishonest at all. Of course it isn't a criminal investigation. No charges were being pressed. Is that your complaint? That it wasn't a criminal investigation?

Given the testimony Dr. Ford gave, which I assume you're familiar with, what details do you think the FBI should have or even could have attempted to verify, beyond the obvious step of interviewing people who Ford claimed were present? We know that the FBI did that very thing and interviewed everyone Ford named as being there, which was all that they could have done to corroborate Ford's testimony. So what else do you think they should have done?

Of course the FBI investigation was limited in scope. But since that scope was wide enough to corroborate any verifiable details given by Ford, what exactly is the problem? What would a wider scope have allowed them to do that they didn't do, in your eyes?

Thank you for saying I am being polite.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous here, though we do seem to be talking past each other. You keep complaining that the FBI investigation was limited in scope, but to me, that limitation was inherent in the nature of the allegations they were investigating.

The problem is you're not actually addressing what I write. Maybe it's an honest mistake but it's hard to assume good faith when it happens over and over again (and you're too smart to continue to make the same mistake). And you keep asking the same question even though it's not answerable.

My complaint is people itt are wrongfully concluding that the background investigation clears Kavanaugh because it's thorough and if that reveals nothing the case is settled. That is plainly not true. Apparently the FBI did not interview Ford or Judge (the other guy in the room). Who knows what could have been revealed.

I am not saying a criminal investigation should be conducted but one with far more scope than what was conducted would have a higher chance of revealing something if there is something to be found. The "case closed" mentality is wrong. And quite frankly those interested in maintaining the integrity of the SC should welcome a broader and more thorough investigation. They should want Kavanaugh's name to be cleared.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The problem is you're not actually addressing what I write. Maybe it's an honest mistake but it's hard to assume good faith when it happens over and over again (and you're too smart to continue to make the same mistake). And you keep asking the same question even though it's not answerable.

My complaint is people itt are wrongfully concluding that the background investigation clears Kavanaugh because it's thorough and if that reveals nothing the case is settled. That is plainly not true. Apparently the FBI did not interview Ford or Judge (the other guy in the room). Who knows what could have been revealed.

I am not saying a criminal investigation should be conducted but one with far more scope than what was conducted would have a higher chance of revealing something if there is something to be found. The "case closed" mentality is wrong. And quite frankly those interested in maintaining the integrity of the SC should welcome a broader and more thorough investigation. They should want Kavanaugh's name to be cleared.

There's no way to clear Kavanaugh. There's no way to ever know with 100% certainty what happened unless he were to confess or Ford were to recant. So all we can go on is the relative strength of her testimony and his defense. Mitchell did a rather thorough job of dismantling Ford's testimony. So what a reasonable person, imo, would want after hearing both testimonies and reading her analysis would be to nail down what the witnesses did or didn't see, or do and don't remember.

So that's precisely what the FBI did, and it is the most valuable service they could have provided in this context. The reason I keep asking what more you want from them is because they already did the one valuable thing I think they could do: interview the other people allegedly involved. I can't think of anything more a reasonable person would want from them in regards to these accusations at this point. If you can, I'd love to hear it.

In my opinion, had even one of the witnesses merely confirmed that they remembered a party, any party, at which both Ford and Kavanaugh were present, it likely would have sunk his nomination. Frankly, even had she released her therapists notes and they showed that she named Kavanaugh by name, it might have been enough, because it would have removed any political angles. Ford wasn't held to a high standard, but her testimony simply couldn't reach the bar.

 

[cincymma79]

You two can taunt all you want, but even if you support Kavanaugh you should still care about the integrity of the court. If I liked him I would welcome a full investigation to clear him so that the court's integrity is intact.

 

[SBJJ]

You know @IngaVovchanchyn, you may be polite but I'd rather you take a nastier tone and actually discuss things in good faith instead of politeness coupled with dishonesty.

Lol

Trying to score points with trolls like a Fawlty and Jack

 

[glenwo2]

No, all of us heard Ford's testimony. That's what investigators had to go on, and they attempted to find any evidence that would corroborate that testimony. They failed to find any after a thorough investigation. In fact, the FBI had more time but simply didn't need it. The only verifiable claims Ford made were related to the 4 people she said were at the alleged party.

You are calling the investigation incomplete. So I'm asking you what was lacking. What stones did they refuse to look under?

I think Liberals' brains are incomplete.

Can't believe the whining is still going on. <Lmaoo>

 

[Lucifer Alpha]

Oh, so nailing criminals doesn't count if it's not Trump? That's a really weird way to view the world and I'm sorry to hear that. Also technical correction, several associates of Trump's were nailed.

Yea we're all safer now that Manafort is off the streets.

 

[glenwo2]

There's no way to clear Kavanaugh. There's no way to ever know with 100% certainty what happened unless he were to confess or Ford were to recant. So all we can go on is the relative strength of her testimony and his defense. Mitchell did a rather thorough job of dismantling Ford's testimony. So what a reasonable person, imo, would want after hearing both testimonies and reading her analysis would be to nail down what the witnesses did or didn't see, or do and don't remember.

So that's precisely what the FBI did, and it is the most valuable service they could have provided in this context. The reason I keep asking what more you want from them is because they already did the one valuable thing I think they could do: interview the other people allegedly involved. I can't think of anything more a reasonable person would want from them in regards to these accusations at this point. If you can, I'd love to hear it.

In my opinion, had even one of the witnesses merely confirmed that they remembered a party, any party, at which both Ford and Kavanaugh were present, it likely would have sunk his nomination. Frankly, even had she released her therapists notes and they showed that she named Kavanaugh by name, it might have been enough, because it would have removed any political angles. Ford wasn't held to a high standard, but her testimony simply couldn't reach the bar.

She didn't recant but her decision to not pursue...is very telling...and very SUSPICIOUS.



Also, an interesting perspective in regards to how she would be viewed, should the Democrats continue to see impeachment on Kavanaugh :

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...avanaugh-will-only-raise-questions-about-ford

 

[SBJJ]

She didn't recant but her decision to not pursue...is very telling...and very SUSPICIOUS.



Also, an interesting perspective in regards to how she would be viewed, should the Democrats continue to see impeachment on Kavanaugh :

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...avanaugh-will-only-raise-questions-about-ford

It was a hit job. Any reasonable person can now see that. It’s clear as day

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

She didn't recant but her decision to not pursue...is very telling...and very SUSPICIOUS.



Also, an interesting perspective in regards to how she would be viewed, should the Democrats continue to see impeachment on Kavanaugh :

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...avanaugh-will-only-raise-questions-about-ford

Meh, I wouldn't make much out of that. Suppose for a moment that everything she said was true. It's easy to see how she would be wearied and done with the whole thing. She must know that she has no chance to secure a conviction or possibly even successfully bring a case. SO why endure the agony.

The conclusion I come to with Ford is twofold:
a. Her testimony doesn't hold up well factually, and
b. Either her or her lawyers were playing political games, which looks bad in this context.

I think going much further than that is unnecessary at this point.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I like when he blatantly lied about not hearing about the reports until the the New Yorker article but his text messages told adifferrnt story.

And the soulless GOP still pushed him thru after he clearly lied like a rat

 

[AlexDB9]

It was a hit job. Any reasonable person can now see that. It’s clear as day

Yep took her $$$ and ran. I don’t know if you can get your money back on gofundme but I guess if you were dumb enough to give money to this lady.....you won’t be smart enough to get it back

 

[glenwo2]

Meh, I wouldn't make much out of that. Suppose for a moment that everything she said was true. It's easy to see how she would be wearied and done with the whole thing. She must know that she has no chance to secure a conviction or possibly even successfully bring a case. SO why endure the agony.

The conclusion I come to with Ford is twofold:
a. Her testimony doesn't hold up well factually, and
b. Either her or her lawyers were playing political games, which looks bad in this context.

I think going much further than that is unnecessary at this point.

My conclusion is

c. BOTH she *and* her lawyers were playing political games, PERIOD.

She never was assaulted, imo. Yes....I'm saying SHE IS LYING.

There's just too much evidence that points to HER lying than Kavanaugh being guilty.

KONG can say whatever he wants but Rachel Mitchell laid it all out on the table for everyone about the credibility(or SEVERE LACK THEREOF) of Ms. Christine Blase FRAUD.

 

[glenwo2]

Yep took her $$$ and ran. I don’t know if you can get your money back on gofundme but I guess if you were dumb enough to give money to this lady.....you won’t be smart enough to get it back

Wish I could send them a bulk email with the word : " SUCKER!" on it.