Believe Accusers!

[FAST6191]

A potentially relevant video in all this

 

[Xzi]

There was no credible, corroborated accusation.

There was no credible investigation, so how are we supposed to know? The FBI didn't even interview Ford or Kavanaugh. The Republicans don't want the facts out, so the public won't find out the truth until much, much later.

Also again, he disqualified himself without even taking the accusations into account. Emotional instability, consistent perjury, and blind partisanship do not a good SCOTUS justice make. I'll say it again: the legitimacy of the supreme court is dead. Kavanaugh is going to be deciding rulings based on "revenge" against the Democrats and women for his entire time on the court.

 

[Hanafuda]

A potentially relevant video in all this

I'm on my way out so only had time to browse/shuffle to a couple bits, but looks interesting. No idea what side the guy favors or if he's just dispassionately commenting/analyzing, but I will definitely watch later. First thought though -> guy looks a little green to be speaking for "lawyers." Need 20-30 years in the profession, as a litigator (not desk jockey type), to really have sufficient XP for that.

 

[kingfrost]

I'm on my way out so only had time to browse/shuffle to a couple bits, but looks interesting. No idea what side the guy favors or if he's just dispassionately commenting/analyzing, but I will definitely watch later. First thought though -> guy looks a little green to be speaking for "lawyers." Need 20-30 years in the profession, as a litigator (not desk jockey type), to really have sufficient XP for that.

That's false I would say. I also didn't watch the video but I've had to use many many attorneys. We won't go into why , but many times the older they are the less they actually know or do and the more they shift you off to their staff. Whereas the younger attorney has more of a freshly educated knows what's laws as they are now eager to please attitude that makes them much better for something that is, basically, a law lesson video.

It's a problem I've ran into many times with partners in law firms. They speak with you and represent you in court but they don't do any of the actual work beyond that. There are exceptions of course, but I doubt they'll the type to be doing YouTube videos.

 

[Hanafuda]

There was no credible investigation, so how are we supposed to know? The FBI didn't even interview Ford or Kavanaugh.

Do you understand that Ford testified to the Committee that she told them EVERYTHING she knew? If the FBI interviewed her and she gave them any difference in the story or any new information, it would mean she lied to the Committee and withheld information. Her lawyers and the Dem senators who kept bleating that whine knew this and had no intention of submitting her to FBI scrutiny.

 

[Xzi]

Do you understand that Ford testified to the Committee that she told them EVERYTHING she knew?

It doesn't matter in the least. If the FBI doesn't interview the two key figures they're supposed to be investigating, it's a sham investigation. The setting, the stakes, and the questions asked are all going to be different from a senate panel. It's also obvious that if they didn't interview the two people most directly involved, they avoided interviewing a lot of important secondary figures too.

 

[dAVID_]

I'm on my way out so only had time to browse/shuffle to a couple bits, but looks interesting. No idea what side the guy favors or if he's just dispassionately commenting/analyzing, but I will definitely watch later. First thought though -> guy looks a little green to be speaking for "lawyers." Need 20-30 years in the profession, as a litigator (not desk jockey type), to really have sufficient XP for that.

How would you be able to know that you need 20-30 years of experience? Isn't that what the purpose of a title is?

 

[kingfrost]

Do you understand that Ford testified to the Committee that she told them EVERYTHING she knew? If the FBI interviewed her and she gave them any difference in the story or any new information, it would mean she lied to the Committee and withheld information. Her lawyers and the Dem senators who kept bleating that whine knew this and had no intention of submitting her to FBI scrutiny.

Now now you can't claim two things at once like you did. You can't say she should have told them everything they needed to know so she didn't need to be interviewed and then turn around and say she didn't want to be.There's also absolutely no proof that they didn't want the FBI to interview her so that's a "false accusation".

I think that is important to note that they didn't do much of an investigation especially when Susan Collins wants to make a 45 minute speech about how we need to heal the rift. A deeper investigation would only have made them look better when it found nothing and if, as my wonderful Senator Cocaine Mitch said, the Republican base is really up in arms and going to vote, they had has absolutely nothing to lose in doing so.

 

[Hanafuda]

It doesn't matter in the least. If the FBI doesn't interview the two most key figures they're supposed investigating, it's a sham investigation. The setting, the stakes, and the questions asked are all going to be different from a senate panel. It's also obvious that if they didn't interview the two people most directly involved, they avoided interviewing a lot of important secondary figures too.

Well that just goes to the question of exactly what the FBI was doing. You keep using the word investigation, but that implies fact-finding and reaching a conclusion. SJC is the fact finder for these hearings. The FBI conducted a supplemental background check, only. They can not and will not ever give an opinion as to whether Ford or Kabanaugh was telling the truth. That’s the SJC’s job.

 

[Xzi]

Well that just goes to the question of exactly what the FBI was doing. You keep using the word investigation, but that implies fact-finding and reaching a conclusion.

Don't play this game. The investigation didn't find anything because the white house didn't want it to find anything. Even if FBI's mission was just "fact-finding," they did a piss poor job of that too because we don't have any more facts now than we did during the senate panel.

 

[kingfrost]

Well that just goes to the question of exactly what the FBI was doing. You keep using the word investigation, but that implies fact-finding and reaching a conclusion. SJC is the fact finder for these hearings. The FBI conducted a supplemental background check, only. They can not and will not ever give an opinion as to whether Ford or Kabanaugh was telling the truth. That’s the SJC’s job.

Yet again absolutely wrong.

It's correct in that the SJC AND White House mislead the public saying this was an investigation if a limited one and only permitted a background check.

FBI investigations do end with a solid opinion however. To pretend that all the FBI does is collect information is to greatly misinterpret its purpose as a law enforcement agency.

For that matter, the SJC doesn't investigate. The constitution, as I've heard for the past month, says that the senate has the right of advise and consent. That doesn't grant them the right to investigate.

Now we can go back to jurisdiction and how the local law enforcement should be the ones to investigate but you can't pretend about the role of FBI in investigations.

 

[dAVID_]

Don't play this game. The investigation didn't find anything because the white house didn't want it to find anything. Even if FBI's mission was just "fact-finding," they did a piss poor job of that too because we don't have any more facts now than we did during the senate panel.

Maybe they weren't able to find any evidence because it was 20+ years ago. Shocking.
But I would agree that Kavanaugh's responses are questionable.

 

[kingfrost]

Maybe they weren't able to find any evidence because it was 20+ years ago. Shocking.
But I would agree that Kavanaugh's responses are questionable.

Testimony is evidence as much as people want to pretend it's not. Also it's on record that it was a limited scope background check. They didn't gather anything, they interviewed 9 out of 10 people they were given on a list by the White House.

Even if I find the accusations to be political in nature, I can't believe any sane individual would deny the investigation was also political cover.

 

[dAVID_]

Testimony is evidence as much as people want to pretend it's not. Also it's on record that it was a limited scope background check. They didn't gather anything, they interviewed 9 out of 10 people they were given on a list by the White House.

Even if I find the accusations to be political in nature, I can't believe any sane individual would deny the investigation was also political cover.

There is no way to know for sure if Kavanaugh is lying or not, same with any of the accusers.

 

[Xzi]

Maybe they weren't able to find any evidence because it was 20+ years ago. Shocking.
But I would agree that Kavanaugh's responses are questionable.

The FBI can and often does get to the heart of the facts in cases much older than 20 years. They weren't able to find any evidence because they were given a week and several over-bearing restrictions on who they were allowed to interview.

 

[dAVID_]

The FBI can and often does get to the heart of the facts in cases much older than 20 years. They weren't able to find any evidence because they were given a week and several over-bearing restrictions on who they were allowed to interview.

Which are?

 

[kingfrost]

There is no way to know for sure if Kavanaugh is lying or not, same with any of the accusers.

That's not true. Testimony can be used to pick at strands until the truth comes out. The way people agree or disagree in their accounts can be very telling to a talented FBI Agent.

As to your other comment, they were told who they were allowed to interview and were given a rather a strict time line that has serves no other purpose than political ascendancy.

 

[dAVID_]

That's not true. Testimony can be used to pick at strands until the truth comes out. The way people agree or disagree in their accounts can be very telling to a talented FBI Agent.

I think at the very best you could corner him into saying certain things, then asking other questions, and attempting to find discrepancies.

 

[kingfrost]

I think at the very best you could corner him into saying certain things, then asking other questions, and attempting to find discrepancies.

That is evidence.

I would add that Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice both crimes that involve misleading an investigation. Guilty people do stupid things when being investigated.

 

[Xzi]

Which are?

Well for starters, they didn't interview Kavanaugh or Ford. As I told Hanafuda, an FBI interview is far different from a senate panel, so that doesn't excuse the negligence here. It would take me a minute, but I could gather you probably at least ten articles from other people who wanted to give their testimony and were rejected as well, including his college roommate and drinking buddies.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

There was no credible investigation, so how are we supposed to know? The FBI didn't even interview Ford or Kavanaugh. The Republicans don't want the facts out, so the public won't find out the truth until much, much later.

Also again, he disqualified himself without even taking the accusations into account. Emotional instability, consistent perjury, and blind partisanship do not a good SCOTUS justice make. I'll say it again: the legitimacy of the supreme court is dead. Kavanaugh is going to be deciding rulings based on "revenge" against the Democrats and women for his entire time on the court.

This. All of it. It doesn't even matter at this point if he is guilty of the sexual accusations. He should be disqualified simply becasue he's an unstable, lying (about several things outside of the sexual accusations), partisan. Even if we were to take the "You'd be pissed too if you were accused of...." thing into account, he is still unqualified and unable to be fair based upon his partisanship alone. What's so fucking difficult about just picking another candidate? Why does it HAVE to be this loser?