Trump orders FBI supplemental investigation into Kavanaugh
In a tweet on Friday afternoon, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders issued a statement on behalf of President Donald Trump.
According to the statement, Trump has "ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file." "As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week," the statement continued.
Kavanaugh says he will continue to cooperate with the FBI
From CNN's Betsy Klein
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh issued a statement Friday afternoon, saying he will continued to cooperate with the FBI:
“Throughout this process, I’ve been interviewed by the FBI, I’ve done a number of 'background' calls directly with the Senate, and yesterday, I answered questions under oath about every topic the Senators and their counsel asked me. I’ve done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate.”
It's not over until it's over. Truth will prevail. The FBI will investigation against Kavanaugh's wishes. CM
Comments
-
And find nothing. He will be on the bench in a week.
-
@reformed said:
And find nothing. He will be on the bench in a week.Remember this very recent OP by a Mr. Reformed: "Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed Today. Headline: "We Have The Votes" Not so fast! Someone is not telling the truth or is grossly mistaken. Kavanaugh's drinking may be the problem and it will help explain Dr. Ford's claims. Spoil brat Kavanaugh can't be on the court. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
And find nothing. He will be on the bench in a week.Remember this very recent OP by a Mr. Reformed: "Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed Today. Headline: "We Have The Votes" Not so fast! Someone is not telling the truth or is grossly mistaken. Kavanaugh's drinking may be the problem and it will help explain Dr. Ford's claims. Spoil brat Kavanaugh can't be on the court. CM
That's a stupid comment. The problem was Democrats got to Jeff Flake and called for an unpredicted and unreasonable delay. And, as of now, they still have the votes as all 51 Republicans and a couple of Democrats still plan to confirm him.
-
@reformed said:
That's a stupid comment. The problem was Democrats got to Jeff Flake and called for an unpredicted and unreasonable delay. And, as of now, they still have the votes as all 51 Republicans and a couple of Democrats still plan to confirm him."The problem" was that the reality of the damage inflicted by sexual assault and the message that would have been sent to assault survivors around the country had the Committee moved the nomination forward without requesting an FBI investigation of the serious and credible charges leveled against Judge Kavanaugh got to Senator Flake.
Another other "problem," as evidenced in these threads, is that so many of Judge Kavanaugh's supporters apparently don't understand either the damage inflicted by sexual assault or the message communicated by their disregard for the stories survivors share. FAR too many Americans sound like residents of the 1960's culture depicted in the AMC television series called "Man Men."
As President Trump would tweet: Sad.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
That's a stupid comment. The problem was Democrats got to Jeff Flake and called for an unpredicted and unreasonable delay. And, as of now, they still have the votes as all 51 Republicans and a couple of Democrats still plan to confirm him."The problem" was that the reality of the damage inflicted by sexual assault and the message that would have been sent to assault survivors around the country had the Committee moved the nomination forward without requesting an FBI investigation of the serious and credible charges leveled against Judge Kavanaugh got to Senator Flake.
What exactly about the charges were credible? No time, no place, no witnesses, no evidence. How is that credible?
Another other "problem," as evidenced in these threads, is that so many of Judge Kavanaugh's supporters apparently don't understand either the damage inflicted by sexual assault or the message communicated by their disregard for the stories survivors share. FAR too many Americans sound like residents of the 1960's culture depicted in the AMC television series called "Man Men."
As President Trump would tweet: Sad.
No. I look and see there is no time, place, evidence, or witnesses. No credibility.
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
And find nothing. He will be on the bench in a week.Remember this very recent OP by a Mr. Reformed: "Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed Today. Headline: "We Have The Votes" Not so fast! Someone is not telling the truth or is grossly mistaken. Kavanaugh's drinking may be the problem and it will help explain Dr. Ford's claims. Spoil brat Kavanaugh can't be on the court. CM
That's a stupid comment. The problem was Democrats got to Jeff Flake and called for an unpredicted and unreasonable delay. And, as of now, they still have the votes as all 51 Republicans and a couple of Democrats still plan to confirm him.
Not so! Why delay the vote? They didn't and don't have the vote. Open your eyes, sir. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
And find nothing. He will be on the bench in a week.Remember this very recent OP by a Mr. Reformed: "Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed Today. Headline: "We Have The Votes" Not so fast! Someone is not telling the truth or is grossly mistaken. Kavanaugh's drinking may be the problem and it will help explain Dr. Ford's claims. Spoil brat Kavanaugh can't be on the court. CM
That's a stupid comment. The problem was Democrats got to Jeff Flake and called for an unpredicted and unreasonable delay. And, as of now, they still have the votes as all 51 Republicans and a couple of Democrats still plan to confirm him.
Not so! Why delay the vote? They didn't and don't have the vote. Open your eyes, sir. CM
McConnel already said they do AFTER this fiasco about the FBI.
-
@reformed said:
No. I look and see there is no time, place, evidence, or witnesses. No credibility.
For someone who SEEMS confident that the FBI will find nothing - "no time, place, evidence, or witnesses" - you sure protest the investigation a lot, reformed. Were I you, and I shared your certainty about the final result, I'd be resting comfortable saying things like, "Let 'em investigate everything! They won't find a thing. And Kavanaugh's going to end up on the court." But that's not your refrain. Yours is a song of constant protest.
When congressional GOPers pressed to investigate Hillary Clinton about Behghazi, I knew they wouldn't find anything, and so, my basic approach was, have it; you're not going to find anything. Of course, when it got to the sixth, seventh, and eighth different investigation of the same basic incident, I grew annoyed and irritable about the process. But until then, I just let them do their thing; didn't voice repeated protests.
Turned out I was right. None of the seven or eight investigations found anything. Clinton looked like the grown up in the room, and congressional GOPers and Clinton's Benghazi critics looked like conspiracy theorists. That was a satisfying result.
If you're as right about this as you claim to be, reformed, stop the pouting, wait for the investigation - no; don't just WAIT for the investigation, DEMAND the investigation - and then count on your GOP friends in the Senate to confirm him, the way you expect them to. I bet you'll think that is a satisfying result, too.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No. I look and see there is no time, place, evidence, or witnesses. No credibility.
For someone who SEEMS confident that the FBI will find nothing - "no time, place, evidence, or witnesses" - you sure protest the investigation a lot, reformed. Were I you, and I shared your certainty about the final result, I'd be resting comfortable saying things like, "Let 'em investigate everything! They won't find a thing. And Kavanaugh's going to end up on the court." But that's not your refrain. Yours is a song of constant protest.
I don't protest the investigation itself. I protest the timing. This should have been done weeks ago if Democrats wanted it. I'm tired of the delay tactics. He should have been on the bench already. This is a delay tactic and it sets a bad precedent. Sit on an unfounded evidence-free allegation for a month then release it at the 11th hour and delay delay delay. I'm tired of it and I think most Americans are.
When congressional GOPers pressed to investigate Hillary Clinton about Behghazi, I knew they wouldn't find anything, and so, my basic approach was, have it; you're not going to find anything. Of course, when it got to the sixth, seventh, and eighth different investigation of the same basic incident, I grew annoyed and irritable about the process. But until then, I just let them do their thing; didn't voice repeated protests.
Benghazi was not the same scenario. There were legitimate concerns there. If the Democrats were legitimately concerned about this they wouldn't have sat on it for weeks.
Turned out I was right. None of the seven or eight investigations found anything. Clinton looked like the grown up in the room, and congressional GOPers and Clinton's Benghazi critics looked like conspiracy theorists. That was a satisfying result.
We disagree about what was found.
If you're as right about this as you claim to be, reformed, stop the pouting, wait for the investigation - no; don't just WAIT for the investigation, DEMAND the investigation - and then count on your GOP friends in the Senate to confirm him, the way you expect them to. I bet you'll think that is a satisfying result, too.
It's a waste of time and it is shameful.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
That's a stupid comment. The problem was Democrats got to Jeff Flake and called for an unpredicted and unreasonable delay. ..."The problem" was that the reality of the damage inflicted by sexual assault and the message that would have been sent to assault survivors around the country had the Committee moved the nomination forward without requesting an FBI investigation of the serious and credible charges leveled against Judge Kavanaugh got to Senator Flake.
IF indeed "credible charges ... got to Senator FLake" then he would be a hypocrite and more of an idiot without any credibility himself for still voting in favor of Kavanaugh !
Seems more like some hysterical women got to him and he perhaps tried to quiet things down by agreeing with a "compromise" to their pressure demands for a delay (most likely a delay until after the mid term elections)While there is indeed damage inflicted in cases of sexual assault, there is of course NO DAMAGE afflicted where such assault never happened!!! Just because accusations are made does not mean that it actually happened.
Another other "problem," as evidenced in these threads, is that so many of Judge Kavanaugh's supporters apparently don't understand either the damage inflicted by sexual assault or the message communicated by their disregard for the stories survivors share. FAR too many Americans sound like residents of the 1960's culture depicted in the AMC television series called "Man Men."
See above ... I am quite aware of damages caused by sexual assaults as I have personally known some women who had been victims of rape whom I endeavored to help in conversation.
However, what you insinuate here seems actually that there is a different matter and motive altogether behind the whole thing, which has nothing to do with hearings for a supreme court judge appointment ... rather, some #metoo philosophy support is to be generated, even to the point of women not even having to prove anything just make accusations and men (especially white males ?) are guilty?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
For someone who SEEMS confident that the FBI will find nothing - "no time, place, evidence, or witnesses" - you sure protest the investigation a lot, reformed.It seems that the FBI has done several investigations and background checks on Mr. Kavanaugh during the last 20-25 years as part of various "job interviews" to determine security clearances, etc .... and never found anything.
Why would (per worse perhaps, "should" ?) they find something now regarding a matter in which his accuser has not provided any real evidence?Were I you, and I shared your certainty about the final result, I'd be resting comfortable saying things like, "Let 'em investigate everything! They won't find a thing. And Kavanaugh's going to end up on the court."
Yeah, sure ... that's the loony idea of citizens giving away their liberty and freedom to the State or anyone else. It doesn't matter whether you have something to hide or not, the burden of proof is not on you in the first place, it's on the accuser's side!!
The type of thinking you display there, in connection with claims of "we can then provide more security for you" has enabled the USA government to do away with liberties and freedoms of the USA citizens even to the point where now any USA citizen can just be accused of something and held indefinitely as a "terrorist suspect" ... evidence not needed. -
@Wolfgang said:
IF indeed "credible charges ... got to Senator FLake" then he would be a hypocrite and more of an idiot without any credibility himself for still voting in favor of Kavanaugh !
Seems more like some hysterical women got to him and he perhaps tried to quiet things down by agreeing with a "compromise" to their pressure demands for a delay (most likely a delay until after the mid term elections)Wow! "...some hysterical women got to him..."? Is this is not trolling?
See above ... I am quite aware of damages caused by sexual assaults as I have personally known some women who had been victims of rape whom I endeavored to help in conversation.
One wonders, in light of your statement above.
However, what you insinuate here seems actually that there is a different matter and motive altogether behind the whole thing, which has nothing to do with hearings for a supreme court judge appointment ... rather, some #metoo philosophy support is to be generated, even to the point of women not even having to prove anything just make accusations and men (especially white males ?) are guilty?
"...even to the point of women not even having to prove anything just make accusations and men (especially white males ?) are guilty?" This is very close to nonsense, "white males"? What's the big deal with "white" men? You can unpack this if you like.
- You missed the point completely of #metoo philosophy.
- Why are you trying to interject race, seeking to change the narrative?
- When it comes to Kavanaugh, we're talking about behavior (past and present), money and privilege. Spoil brat Kavanaugh can't distract with tantrums his way on to the "High Court". This is a new day!
- This is why the FBI is looking into Kavanaugh, again, with an unlimited scope into all allegations, to settle it once and for all. Aren't you glad? If cleared, he will still be unqualified. He lacks temperament, period.
Wolfgang, did you watch Dr. Ford's testimony? Do you believe her? Are we in the age of "hysterical" men? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
In a tweet on Friday afternoon, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders issued a statement on behalf of President Donald Trump.According to the statement, Trump has "ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file." "As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week," the statement continued.
...
It's not over until it's over. Truth will prevail. The FBI will investigation against Kavanaugh's wishes. CM
I thought I would never say this:
THANK YOU, MR. TRUMP!!!
The US President stepped up to the moment. His true democratic side shined through. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang, did you watch Dr. Ford's testimony?
In part
**Do you believe her?
Not really ....
Also, her "testimony" was - in my opinion - basically unsupported accusations, and these were even vague and the testimony as a whole appeared to be like "a Democratic Senator guided interview" rather than a somewhat objective investigative hearing to determine whether something illegal, criminal had even happened
Now, I am in a rather objective position as an outsider who is not interested in nor has any "investment" in either Elephants or Donkeys ... and from such perspective, her talk was not convincing
Are we in the age of "hysterical" men**?
Sometimes one could get this impression when reading certain posts in threads here on current political topics ... in particular, it is seen in almost hateful fiery word darts thrown at anything even remotely connected with the current USA president.
I'd suggest you read the short article I posted in the following post in order to perhaps understand what is really going on with these hearings:
-
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
IF indeed "credible charges ... got to Senator FLake" then he would be a hypocrite and more of an idiot without any credibility himself for still voting in favor of Kavanaugh !
Seems more like some hysterical women got to him and he perhaps tried to quiet things down by agreeing with a "compromise" to their pressure demands for a delay (most likely a delay until after the mid term elections)Wow! "...some hysterical women got to him..."? Is this is not trolling?
Compare the following excerpt article:
Anti-White-Male Kavanaugh Hatefest May Close Midterm Enthusiasm Gap—and Get GOP Senators On the Trump Train! by John Derbyshire... Goodwhites are fighting a fierce rearguard action, though. A key figure here has been Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Mitt Romney-style open-borders social conservative who is retiring from politics at the end of this year.
Flake announced this morning, Friday, that he would vote to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate. Then midday he was cornered in an elevator by two shrieking women and apparently lost his nerve: He told the Judiciary Committee when he got out that he’d vote aye to advance the nomination only on condition the full Senate delays their vote for a week. [Trump agrees to FBI probe of Kavanaugh, bows to Flake, Dems, by Lisa Mascaro, Alan Fram and Mary Clare Jalonick, AP, September 27, 2018] Score one for hysterical harpies, score zero for the dignity of Senatorial process.
-
@reformed said:
I don't protest the investigation itself. I protest the timing. This should have been done weeks ago if Democrats wanted it. I'm tired of the delay tactics. He should have been on the bench already. This is a delay tactic and it sets a bad precedent. Sit on an unfounded evidence-free allegation for a month then release it at the 11th hour and delay delay delay. I'm tired of it and I think most Americans are.You DON'T "protest the investigation itself"?
- When later in your same post you call the investigation "a waste of time" and "shameful"?
- When in THIS POST, of the proposed FBI investigation you argued "there is no need for this" because "the witnesses are not required to talk to them. There is no scene to investigate. There is nobody to talk to that will help Ford's case. The witnesses she calls say that the event did not occur"?
- And when in THIS POST, you argued that such an investigation would create "an unnecessary delay, an unnecessary expense, to find what we already know to be true"?
Those posts sure READ like you're protesting the investigation itself.
When congressional GOPers pressed to investigate Hillary Clinton about Behghazi, I knew they wouldn't find anything, and so, my basic approach was, have it; you're not going to find anything. Of course, when it got to the sixth, seventh, and eighth different investigation of the same basic incident, I grew annoyed and irritable about the process. But until then, I just let them do their thing; didn't voice repeated protests.
Benghazi was not the same scenario. There were legitimate concerns there. If the Democrats were legitimately concerned about this they wouldn't have sat on it for weeks.
In my view, allegations of sexual assault are ALSO "legitimate concerns." Whether the Democrats "sat on it for weeks" offers no commentary on Dr. Blasey Ford's life experience, or the "100%" certainty of her identification of Brett Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her.
It's a waste of time and it is shameful.
Yet you claim that you "don't protest the investigation itself."
-
@Wolfgang said:
IF indeed "credible charges ... got to Senator FLake" then he would be a hypocrite and more of an idiot without any credibility himself for still voting in favor of Kavanaugh !
President Trump called Dr. Ford "a very credible witness" and said her testimony was "compelling." In the name of consistency, do you ALSO argue that the president would be a "hypocrite and more of an idiot without credibility himself" were he still to support Kavanaugh?
Seems more like some hysterical women got to him and he perhaps tried to quiet things down by agreeing with a "compromise" to their pressure demands for a delay (most likely a delay until after the mid term elections)
The women who spoke to Senator Flake in the elevator told their painful personal stories of sexual assault in an angry, tearful manner. In his appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh loudly, angrily, and tearfully asserted his innocence, at a couple of points asking committee members about their alcohol consumption, and in one case, whether a senator had ever experienced memory loss due to her consumption of alcohol. In light of the nature of his presentation, and in the name of consistency, Wolfgang, do you characterize Kavanaugh as a "hysterical man"?
While there is indeed damage inflicted in cases of sexual assault, there is of course NO DAMAGE afflicted where such assault never happened!!! Just because accusations are made does not mean that it actually happened.
And just because an accused assaulter denies accusations does not mean it did not actually happen.
See above ... I am quite aware of damages caused by sexual assaults as I have personally known some women who had been victims of rape whom I endeavored to help in conversation.
Good.
However, what you insinuate here seems actually that there is a different matter and motive altogether behind the whole thing, which has nothing to do with hearings for a supreme court judge appointment ... rather, some #metoo philosophy support is to be generated, even to the point of women not even having to prove anything just make accusations and men (especially white males ?) are guilty?
What is Dr Ford supposed to do, Wolfgang? She claims to have had an experience with Brett Kavanaugh while in high school, an experience about which she testified under oath before a congressional committee, an experience she told her husband and couples' therapist about six years ago. Her slow-moving and evolving journey of personal awareness about the reality and impact of her assault is like the journeys of millions of other assault survivors. What ELSE was she supposed to do?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
What is Dr Ford supposed to do, Wolfgang?Be honest and reasonable to herself and others. Don't come up with stories 3 decades when all of a sudden the opportunity arises ...
Due to her history in the matter, I am rather confident to claim that we would never have heard of her accusing anyone if there had not been this judge nomination ... she would have never accused Mr. Kavanaugh if he was not the candidate for a judge position on the supreme court.
She claims to have had an experience with Brett Kavanaugh while in high school, an experience about which she testified under oath before a congressional committee, an experience she told her husband and couples' therapist about six years ago.
Yes, she claims that ... but doesn't even remember any details. If she has been able to deal with the matter and for 3 decades to put the matter behind, she never should have dug it out again ... most likely because she was prompted by someone once a woman accuser was needed to try and destroy Kavanaugh.
Her slow-moving and evolving journey of personal awareness about the reality and impact of her assault is like the journeys of millions of other assault survivors.
And what is supposedly her field of expertise? Is she always that slow? By the time she would figure something out to teach her students they would have already graduated.
What ELSE was she supposed to do?
For once in her life, refuse to be used as a pawn by someone
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I don't protest the investigation itself. I protest the timing. This should have been done weeks ago if Democrats wanted it. I'm tired of the delay tactics. He should have been on the bench already. This is a delay tactic and it sets a bad precedent. Sit on an unfounded evidence-free allegation for a month then release it at the 11th hour and delay delay delay. I'm tired of it and I think most Americans are.You DON'T "protest the investigation itself"?
- When later in your same post you call the investigation "a waste of time" and "shameful"?
- When in THIS POST, of the proposed FBI investigation you argued "there is no need for this" because "the witnesses are not required to talk to them. There is no scene to investigate. There is nobody to talk to that will help Ford's case. The witnesses she calls say that the event did not occur"?
- And when in THIS POST, you argued that such an investigation would create "an unnecessary delay, an unnecessary expense, to find what we already know to be true"?
Those posts sure READ like you're protesting the investigation itself.
I protest the premise of the investigation and the timing. If this had happened 2 months ago and not last minute, I would have said no problem. No delaying tactics there. No politics there. Business as usual. This is not business as usual.
When congressional GOPers pressed to investigate Hillary Clinton about Behghazi, I knew they wouldn't find anything, and so, my basic approach was, have it; you're not going to find anything. Of course, when it got to the sixth, seventh, and eighth different investigation of the same basic incident, I grew annoyed and irritable about the process. But until then, I just let them do their thing; didn't voice repeated protests.
Benghazi was not the same scenario. There were legitimate concerns there. If the Democrats were legitimately concerned about this they wouldn't have sat on it for weeks.
In my view, allegations of sexual assault are ALSO "legitimate concerns." Whether the Democrats "sat on it for weeks" offers no commentary on Dr. Blasey Ford's life experience, or the "100%" certainty of her identification of Brett Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her.
The 100% certainty is a joke. That has been shown to be unreliable by hundreds of victims. Because the alleged victim is 100% certain shows nothing and has no bearing on a case.
It's a waste of time and it is shameful.
Yet you claim that you "don't protest the investigation itself."
See above.
Speaking of credible, saying she is credible doesn't really mean anything. I looked at the definition of credible and basically, it has no bearing either. It means believable. Does not mean that she was believed.
Though her account, as it stands, is anything but believable. Too many holes, too many unknowns, no witnesses, no evidence, no crime scene, no date/time of crime.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Those posts sure READ like you're protesting the investigation itself.I protest the premise of the investigation and the timing. If this had happened 2 months ago and not last minute, I would have said no problem. No delaying tactics there. No politics there. Business as usual. This is not business as usual.
In my view, when you protest BOTH the timing AND the premise of an investigation, you're protesting "the investigation itself" because you're protesting both its rationale and implementation. What else is left?
In your post you claim "if this had happened 2 months ago and not last minute, I would have said no problem." But review your criticisms of the investigation to which I drew attention in my previous post:
- The investigation is "a waste time" and "shameful"
- There is "no need" for the investigation because "the witnesses are not required to talk to them. There is no scene to investigate. There is nobody to talk to that will help Ford's case. The witnesses she calls say that the event did not occur."
- The investigation would create "an unnecessary delay, an unnecessary expense, to find what we already know to be true."
Which of those criticisms has anything to do with the start date of the investigation? If you believe there's "no need" for the investigation now, on what basis should we conclude you would have believed there WAS a need for it two months ago? If the probe is a "shameful" "waste of time" now, why would you have thought it wasn't such a waste two months ago? In my view, your protest is clearly NOT rooted in the fact that the probe is starting two months late.
The 100% certainty is a joke. That has been shown to be unreliable by hundreds of victims. Because the alleged victim is 100% certain shows nothing and has no bearing on a case.
That you would refer to the clear memory of a sexual assault survivor as "a joke" speaks far more about your lack of concern for and understanding of the impact of sexual assault on its victims than it does about the quality of that survivor's memory. For the sixth or so time, I encourage you to read more broadly and deeply on the subject than you have to-date.
Speaking of credible, saying she is credible doesn't really mean anything. I looked at the definition of credible and basically, it has no bearing either. It means believable. Does not mean that she was believed.
I wonder: Have you EVER found a sexual assault survivor's story credible? Have you ever actually BELIEVED a sexual assault survivor's story?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Several comments about your post, Wolfgang:
What is Dr Ford supposed to do, Wolfgang?
Be honest and reasonable to herself and others. Don't come up with stories 3 decades when all of a sudden the opportunity arises ...
How do you know Dr Ford "came up with" the story of her assault that she first told her husband and couples therapist six years ago? Please provide links to the factual basis upon which you base your conclusion that she made up her story.
Due to her history in the matter, I am rather confident to claim that we would never have heard of her accusing anyone if there had not been this judge nomination ... she would have never accused Mr. Kavanaugh if he was not the candidate for a judge position on the supreme court.
I agree with you completely here. Perhaps you and I are both referring to the fact that she's said she decided to submit her story anonymously to the Washington Post's tip line last summer when she learned that Kavanaugh had been added to the president's list of candidates for the nomination. It's clear to me from her story that she would not have done so had Kavanaugh not advanced to the candidate list.
A victim chooses to wrestle quietly with her assault, and does so for decades. But when she learns her assaulter might be appointed to the highest court in the land, she decides to tell someone. Given the impact of sexual assault on its victims, I find that outcome completely understandable.
Yes, she claims that ... but doesn't even remember any details. If she has been able to deal with the matter and for 3 decades to put the matter behind, she never should have dug it out again ... most likely because she was prompted by someone once a woman accuser was needed to try and destroy Kavanaugh.
Given her public testimony about the reason she came forward when and in what matter she did, on what factual basis do you allege that she was "most likely... prompted by someone" to come forward? Do you believe the same person or persons prompted her to come forward with her story six years ago when she first told her husband and couples therapist? Or do you believe six year ago it was someone else who prompted her to come forward? And how did the person or persons who in your view prompted her to come forward now know that she had story to come forward with, one she first told to her husband and couples therapist six years ago?
In my view, that you apparently believe she "put the matter behind" her for the last three decades shows your lack of understanding of her personal journey as she has reported it, and a lack of understanding of the impact of sexual assault on its victims. I encourage you to read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the subject.
And what is supposedly her field of expertise? Is she always that slow? By the time she would figure something out to teach her students they would have already graduated.
I strongly encourage you to read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the impact of sexual assault on its survivors.
What ELSE was she supposed to do?
For once in her life, refuse to be used as a pawn by someone
This odd statement is a bit like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" in that it's hard to respond to. The basic response, however, is that she's not being used. She's told her story under oath to Congress, and will soon tell her story, effectively under oath, to the FBI. The truth is not a "pawn" that can be used in the way you insinuate.
"For once in her life" suggests you believe she was "used as a pawn by someone" on one or more occasions prior to her allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. On what factual basis do you make your claim?
The most curious part of your response, Wolfgang, is your decision NOT to respond to (aka, "evade"?) the questions with which my previous post began. Because I very much seek your direct response to those questions, I repeat them in this post:
In a previous post, you claimed Jeff Flake would be a "hypocrite and more of an idiot" were he were to support Kavanaugh in the face of what he believed to be "credible charges." Well, President Trump called Dr. Ford "a very credible witness" and said her testimony was "compelling." In the name of consistency, do you ALSO argue that the president would be a "hypocrite and more of an idiot without credibility himself" were he still to support Kavanaugh, given that he found Dr Ford "very credible"?
Also in a previous post, you described the two people who confronted Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator as "hysterical women." In response to your observation, I asked: The women who spoke to Senator Flake in the elevator told their painful personal stories of sexual assault in an angry, tearful manner. In his appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh loudly, angrily, and tearfully asserted his innocence, at a couple of points asking committee members about their alcohol consumption, and in one case, whether a senator had ever experienced memory loss due to her consumption of alcohol. In light of the nature of his presentation, and in the name of consistency, Wolfgang, do you characterize Kavanaugh as having been a "hysterical man" during his Senate committee testimony?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Those posts sure READ like you're protesting the investigation itself.I protest the premise of the investigation and the timing. If this had happened 2 months ago and not last minute, I would have said no problem. No delaying tactics there. No politics there. Business as usual. This is not business as usual.
In my view, when you protest BOTH the timing AND the premise of an investigation, you're protesting "the investigation itself" because you're protesting both its rationale and implementation. What else is left?
In your post you claim "if this had happened 2 months ago and not last minute, I would have said no problem." But review your criticisms of the investigation to which I drew attention in my previous post:
- The investigation is "a waste time" and "shameful"
- There is "no need" for the investigation because "the witnesses are not required to talk to them. There is no scene to investigate. There is nobody to talk to that will help Ford's case. The witnesses she calls say that the event did not occur."
- The investigation would create "an unnecessary delay, an unnecessary expense, to find what we already know to be true."
Which of those criticisms has anything to do with the start date of the investigation? If you believe there's "no need" for the investigation now, on what basis should we conclude you would have believed there WAS a need for it two months ago? If the probe is a "shameful" "waste of time" now, why would you have thought it wasn't such a waste two months ago? In my view, your protest is clearly NOT rooted in the fact that the probe is starting two months late.
There's no need for it because they can't even do as much as the JC has. It isn't a criminal investigation. It is a waste of time. I have no problem with doing one, but not now. Not after the hearing. It should have been done prior to the hearing if Feinstein and company really thought there was something to it.
The 100% certainty is a joke. That has been shown to be unreliable by hundreds of victims. Because the alleged victim is 100% certain shows nothing and has no bearing on a case.
That you would refer to the clear memory of a sexual assault survivor as "a joke" speaks far more about your lack of concern for and understanding of the impact of sexual assault on its victims than it does about the quality of that survivor's memory. For the sixth or so time, I encourage you to read more broadly and deeply on the subject than you have to-date.
Clear memory? Please. If they are wrong it isn't with 100% certainty and if it is, the "certainty" was wrong. Glad we don't convict people based on a victim's claimed 100% certainty.
Speaking of credible, saying she is credible doesn't really mean anything. I looked at the definition of credible and basically, it has no bearing either. It means believable. Does not mean that she was believed.
I wonder: Have you EVER found a sexual assault survivor's story credible? Have you ever actually BELIEVED a sexual assault survivor's story?
Yes. When there is evidence to back it up. In this case, there isn't.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
Several comments about your post, Wolfgang:
What is Dr Ford supposed to do, Wolfgang?
Be honest and reasonable to herself and others. Don't come up with stories 3 decades when all of a sudden the opportunity arises ...
How do you know Dr Ford "came up with" the story of her assault that she first told her husband and couples therapist six years ago? Please provide links to the factual basis upon which you base your conclusion that she made up her story.
Due to her history in the matter, I am rather confident to claim that we would never have heard of her accusing anyone if there had not been this judge nomination ... she would have never accused Mr. Kavanaugh if he was not the candidate for a judge position on the supreme court.
I agree with you completely here. Perhaps you and I are both referring to the fact that she's said she decided to submit her story anonymously to the Washington Post's tip line last summer when she learned that Kavanaugh had been added to the president's list of candidates for the nomination. It's clear to me from her story that she would not have done so had Kavanaugh not advanced to the candidate list.
A victim chooses to wrestle quietly with her assault, and does so for decades. But when she learns her assaulter might be appointed to the highest court in the land, she decides to tell someone. Given the impact of sexual assault on its victims, I find that outcome completely understandable.
Yes, she claims that ... but doesn't even remember any details. If she has been able to deal with the matter and for 3 decades to put the matter behind, she never should have dug it out again ... most likely because she was prompted by someone once a woman accuser was needed to try and destroy Kavanaugh.
Given her public testimony about the reason she came forward when and in what matter she did, on what factual basis do you allege that she was "most likely... prompted by someone" to come forward? Do you believe the same person or persons prompted her to come forward with her story six years ago when she first told her husband and couples therapist? Or do you believe six year ago it was someone else who prompted her to come forward? And how did the person or persons who in your view prompted her to come forward now know that she had story to come forward with, one she first told to her husband and couples therapist six years ago?
In my view, that you apparently believe she "put the matter behind" her for the last three decades shows your lack of understanding of her personal journey as she has reported it, and a lack of understanding of the impact of sexual assault on its victims. I encourage you to read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the subject.
And what is supposedly her field of expertise? Is she always that slow? By the time she would figure something out to teach her students they would have already graduated.
I strongly encourage you to read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the impact of sexual assault on its survivors.
What ELSE was she supposed to do?
For once in her life, refuse to be used as a pawn by someone
This odd statement is a bit like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" in that it's hard to respond to. The basic response, however, is that she's not being used. She's told her story under oath to Congress, and will soon tell her story, effectively under oath, to the FBI. The truth is not a "pawn" that can be used in the way you insinuate.
"For once in her life" suggests you believe she was "used as a pawn by someone" on one or more occasions prior to her allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. On what factual basis do you make your claim?
The most curious part of your response, Wolfgang, is your decision NOT to respond to (aka, "evade"?) the questions with which my previous post began. Because I very much seek your direct response to those questions, I repeat them in this post:
In a previous post, you claimed Jeff Flake would be a "hypocrite and more of an idiot" were he were to support Kavanaugh in the face of what he believed to be "credible charges." Well, President Trump called Dr. Ford "a very credible witness" and said her testimony was "compelling." In the name of consistency, do you ALSO argue that the president would be a "hypocrite and more of an idiot without credibility himself" were he still to support Kavanaugh, given that he found Dr Ford "very credible"?
Also in a previous post, you described the two people who confronted Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator as "hysterical women." In response to your observation, I asked: The women who spoke to Senator Flake in the elevator told their painful personal stories of sexual assault in an angry, tearful manner. In his appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh loudly, angrily, and tearfully asserted his innocence, at a couple of points asking committee members about their alcohol consumption, and in one case, whether a senator had ever experienced memory loss due to her consumption of alcohol. In light of the nature of his presentation, and in the name of consistency, Wolfgang, do you characterize Kavanaugh as having been a "hysterical man" during his Senate committee testimony?
With regard to the elevator situation it seems that those are actually Democrat operatives. Shocker.
-
1. Well well well. Looks like Ford and Feinstein and the Democratic Party are going to be investigated now. How interesting is that going to be? Uhhhh—-oh. And the man who wrote the anonymous letter with the fake accusation. could potentially get up to 10 years? Well well well.
-
@GaoLu said:
1. Well well well. Looks like Ford and Feinstein and the Democratic Party are going to be investigated now. How interesting is that going to be? Uhhhh—-oh. And the man who wrote the anonymous letter with the fake accusation. could potentially get up to 10 years? Well well well.Glad the Republicans had the guts to go after that junk!
-
@reformed said:
There's no need for it because they can't even do as much as the JC has. It isn't a criminal investigation. It is a waste of time. I have no problem with doing one, but not now. Not after the hearing. It should have been done prior to the hearing if Feinstein and company really thought there was something to it.I don't follow your reasoning.
You claim there's "no reason" for the investigation. You claim it's a "shameful" "waste." You claim an investigation would cause an "unnecessary delay" and "expense." You claim that an investigation "can't even do as much as the JC" did. YET, you also claim that you "have no problem doing one" as long as it's not done now.
In your view, how is it EVER the right time to do an investigation that is a "shameful waste" for which there is "no reason" because, among other reasons, it would cause "unnecessary delay" and "expense"? Why wouldn't a "shameful waste" for which there was "no reason" have bothered you two months ago just as much as it bothers you today?
Clear memory? Please. If they are wrong it isn't with 100% certainty and if it is, the "certainty" was wrong. Glad we don't convict people based on a victim's claimed 100% certainty.
The victim of this alleged assault claims that her memory is clear, 100% certainty. How do you KNOW her memory isn't 100% clear about the incident?
"If they are wrong it isn't with 100% certainty and if it is, the "certainty" was wrong."
What does that sentence mean? Particularly, to what does "it" in the clause "and if it is" refer?
Yes. When there is evidence to back it up. In this case, there isn't.
There IS evidence. It's just not evidence you find compelling.
-
This thing IS NOT ABOUT TRUTH!
Dems / Republicans are two sides of the same coin.
Trump is a one-term President. This is his only real legacy. All the other things he has done will be reversed. This is why they are going all out.
Kavanaugh is no choir boy as purported. He had and has a drinking problem. He's in denial.
This is why the White House is severely restricting the FBI new investigations. I am of neither of the Parties, I know this one thing: Republicans can't be trusted.
THIS WHOLE THING IS ABOUT POWER! CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
There's no need for it because they can't even do as much as the JC has. It isn't a criminal investigation. It is a waste of time. I have no problem with doing one, but not now. Not after the hearing. It should have been done prior to the hearing if Feinstein and company really thought there was something to it.I don't follow your reasoning.
You claim there's "no reason" for the investigation. You claim it's a "shameful" "waste." You claim an investigation would cause an "unnecessary delay" and "expense." You claim that an investigation "can't even do as much as the JC" did. YET, you also claim that you "have no problem doing one" as long as it's not done now.
Not sure what is so hard to follow Bill.
In your view, how is it EVER the right time to do an investigation that is a "shameful waste" for which there is "no reason" because, among other reasons, it would cause "unnecessary delay" and "expense"? Why wouldn't a "shameful waste" for which there was "no reason" have bothered you two months ago just as much as it bothers you today?
It would not have been a shameful waste if the investigation had not already been completed by the JC.
Clear memory? Please. If they are wrong it isn't with 100% certainty and if it is, the "certainty" was wrong. Glad we don't convict people based on a victim's claimed 100% certainty.
The victim of this alleged assault claims that her memory is clear, 100% certainty. How do you KNOW her memory isn't 100% clear about the incident?
It doesn't matter if her memory is 100% clear if it isn't 100% accurate. That's the point I am making.
"If they are wrong it isn't with 100% certainty and if it is, the "certainty" was wrong."
What does that sentence mean? Particularly, to what does "it" in the clause "and if it is" refer?
Yes. When there is evidence to back it up. In this case, there isn't.
There IS evidence. It's just not evidence you find compelling.
What evidence is there to back it up. Name ONE PIECE of evidence other than her say so. Just one.
-
@C_M_ said:
This thing IS NOT ABOUT TRUTH!This is the first truthful thing you have said about this.
Dems / Republicans are two sides of the same coin.
Then you go off the deep end again.
Trump is a one-term President. This is his only real legacy. All the other things he has done will be reversed. This is why they are going all out.
According to what?
Kavanaugh is no choir boy as purported. He had and has a drinking problem. He's in denial.
Proof?
This is why the White House is severely restricting the FBI new investigations. I am of neither of the Parties, I know this one thing: Republicans can't be trusted.
Severely restricting? How so?
THIS WHOLE THING IS ABOUT POWER! CM
Yes, go after the Democrats about that.
-
@reformed said:
Severely restricting? How so?
Democrats Denounce Limits on F.B.I.’s Kavanaugh Inquiry as a ‘Farce’
Sept. 30, 2018F.B.I. investigators looking into sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee, will conduct interviews with only four people, at least initially.Erin Schaff for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. moved on Sunday to quickly complete an abbreviated investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, even as Democrats demanded more information about the inquiry’s scope, warning that its apparent constraints could make it a “farce.”As agents conducted their review, which** involves interviewing four potential witnesses, a college professor in North Carolina became the latest in a series of former Yale classmates of Judge Kavanaugh’s to accuse him of giving untruthful testimony by minimizing his use of alcohol when he was a student**.
The professor, Chad Ludington, said he frequently saw Judge Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption” during their student years. He said he planned to tell his story to the F.B.I. at its office in Raleigh, N.C., on Monday. A spokesman for the White House declined to comment on Mr. Ludington’s allegations.
[Read Chad Ludington’s full statement on Judge Kavanaugh’s drinking and Senate testimony.]
Officials said the F.B.I.’s “limited” supplemental background check of Judge Kavanaugh could be finished by Monday morning. Set in motion late last week by three Senate Republicans, the inquiry was supposed to shed further light on accusations that Judge Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct during his high school and college years and help resolve the fierce national debate over whether he should win confirmation to the Supreme Court. CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
