Politics And Current Events

[Viva la Ben]

I’m trying to feel bad for Jeff Sessions.

[Viva la Ben]

A silver green lining?
Giant Bundles Of Marijuana Wash Up On Florida Beaches Following Hurricane Florence
http://www.news9.com/story/39117227/gia ... e-florence

[grunthy]

A silver green lining?
Giant Bundles Of Marijuana Wash Up On Florida Beaches Following Hurricane Florence
http://www.news9.com/story/39117227/gia ... e-florence

Don’t normally get 3 high tides in a day.

[Troy Loney]

Trump on Hurricane Florence,

"one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water".

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

Trump on Hurricane Florence,

"one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water".

#stormy

[Viva la Ben]

Tremendously big and tremendously wet like no one has ever seen.

[Morkle]

“I don’t have an Attorney General. It’s very sad,” Trump told Hill.TV in an extensive and free-wheeling interview Tuesday from the Oval Office.

“I’m not happy at the border, I’m not happy with numerous things, not just this,” he said.

Trump suggested he had a personal blind spot when it came to nominating Sessions as the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

“I’m so sad over Jeff Sessions because he came to me. He was the first Senator that endorsed me. And he wanted to be Attorney General, and I didn’t see it,” he said.

“And then he went through the nominating process and he did very poorly. I mean, he was mixed up and confused, and people that worked with him for, you know, a long time in the Senate were not nice to him, but he was giving very confusing answers. Answers that should have been easily answered. And that was a rough time for him.”

“He gets in and probably because of the experience that he had going through the nominating when somebody asked him the first question about Hillary Clinton or something he said ‘I recuse myself, I recuse myself,’" Trump said.

“And now it turned out he didn’t have to recuse himself. Actually, the FBI reported shortly thereafter any reason for him to recuse himself. And it’s very sad what happened.”

“We’ll see what happens. A lot of people have asked me to do that. And I guess I study history, and I say I just want to leave things alone, but it was very unfair what he did,” he said, referring to the recusal decision.

“And my worst enemies, I mean, people that, you know, are on the other side of me, in a lot of ways including politically, have said that was a very unfair thing he did.”

He concluded: "We’ll see how it goes with Jeff. I’m very disappointed in Jeff. Very disappointed."

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40735 ... ssion=true

The self-awareness in this is that, Trump did such a bad job with the hiring and appointment, that it's because Jeff sucks, not that he sucks.

[skullman80]

“I don’t have an Attorney General. It’s very sad,” Trump told Hill.TV in an extensive and free-wheeling interview Tuesday from the Oval Office.

“I’m not happy at the border, I’m not happy with numerous things, not just this,” he said.

Trump suggested he had a personal blind spot when it came to nominating Sessions as the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

“I’m so sad over Jeff Sessions because he came to me. He was the first Senator that endorsed me. And he wanted to be Attorney General, and I didn’t see it,” he said.

“And then he went through the nominating process and he did very poorly. I mean, he was mixed up and confused, and people that worked with him for, you know, a long time in the Senate were not nice to him, but he was giving very confusing answers. Answers that should have been easily answered. And that was a rough time for him.”

“He gets in and probably because of the experience that he had going through the nominating when somebody asked him the first question about Hillary Clinton or something he said ‘I recuse myself, I recuse myself,’" Trump said.

“And now it turned out he didn’t have to recuse himself. Actually, the FBI reported shortly thereafter any reason for him to recuse himself. And it’s very sad what happened.”

“We’ll see what happens. A lot of people have asked me to do that. And I guess I study history, and I say I just want to leave things alone, but it was very unfair what he did,” he said, referring to the recusal decision.

“And my worst enemies, I mean, people that, you know, are on the other side of me, in a lot of ways including politically, have said that was a very unfair thing he did.”

He concluded: "We’ll see how it goes with Jeff. I’m very disappointed in Jeff. Very disappointed."

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40735 ... ssion=true

Is this real life? good lord.

[Freddy Rumsen]

The New York Times steps on a rake again.



https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/sta ... 6023985153

[tifosi77]

The FBI already declined to conduct an investigation.

Which her lawyer knows. Short of this session collecting sworn testimony, what else is there to do? If they're not bringing evidence, as I mentioned earlier with the CNN clip, and are refusing to offer testimony...what now?

This is pretty obviously a ploy to stall the confirmation vote, which it has, right?

This isn't meant to be a criminal investigation.

The investigation being sought is pursuant to the FBI's background check work for federal appointees. They are empowered, pursuant to their SF86 checks, to investigate potential criminal conduct going back to when the subject was 16 years of age.

Linda Chavez, former W Bush Secy of Labor nominee, was on TV last night, and she said that when it came out that she had hired an illegal alien as her nanny/maid/whatever it was, by the time she got home from work that night the FBI was on the way over to re-interview her. But in this case, as the FBI declared the matter closed, that cannot happen unless and until the client for the work product - POTUS - requests a re-opening of the check.

The precedent here is, I believe, the Anita Hill claim.

[tifosi77]

Second, she and her lawyers have realized that her recollection of events is nowhere near good enough to back up her accusations, so they hope the FBI or some other law-enforcement agency will come in and confirm the stuff that Ms. Ford believes she remembers.

When is the last time you've gone to trial before conducting an investigation?

[Freddy Rumsen]

1) Anita Hill was a federal employee and the events under review were contemporary to the proceedings.

2) It seems pretty obvious to me that Feinstein didn't plan this through, at all. She was thinking in the #metoo era that the mere insinuation of impropriety would see Kavanaugh chucked to the side and has no real back-up plan for what has transpired.

[tifosi77]

The other is a criminal investigation to look into this exact situation, the FBI has opted not to conduct one due to lack of a federal issue and the expired statute of limitations, presumably. It's not helpful to mix these mechanisms up.

Based on what I've read and understand, Maryland does not have a statute of limitations for any sex-related crimes, which would likely complicate the investigation. For example, if I were the lawyer for Mark Judge, I would tell him to raise his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to any questioning because there is a non-zero chance that his statements could be used to incriminate him. (That doesn't mean I think he was involved in anything. I think I'm well-established on the record here that I advise anyone and everyone to never, ever talk to law enforcement under any circumstances.) So if the FBI did go talk to Judge, he probably would refuse to answer any questions anyway.

While I agree with you as to Judge's potential criminal exposure, think about the optics of what 'taking the fifth' would be. You can't just willy nilly claim a 5th Amendment privilege. Doing so means that a truthful answer to the question would likely implicate you in a crime, and not just the alleged one that is the subject of the inquiry. I know jurors cannot take that sort of thing into consideration, but this is a different court.

Judge claiming 5th Amendment privilege would be incredibly damaging to Kavanaugh's nomination. And I thin that's the purpose of the letter he sent to Senator Grassley.... "Dear Chairman Grassley, Do not put me under oath. Kthx, Marky Mark."

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

The part that upsets me about this revealing is the Dems don't give a flying hoot about Dr. Ford. They don't want to get justice for if what she is claiming is true, they just want to use her as a prop to keep Kavanaugh out. At least Republicans are upfront about not caring, Dems pretend.

[tifosi77]

1) Anita Hill was a federal employee and the events under review were contemporary to the proceedings.

If by 'contemporary' you mean 'ten years old', sure. At which point we shall begin debating the definition of 'is'.

[Freddy Rumsen]

1) Anita Hill was a federal employee and the events under review were contemporary to the proceedings.

If by 'contemporary' you mean 'ten years old', sure. At which point we shall begin debating the definition of 'is'.

In comparison to 35 years, and that both Hill and Thomas were federal employees, and adults when the events took place fits the word contemporary in this subject.

[tifosi77]

Contemporary is a temporal, not a contextual, frame of reference (it's even part of the word), but okay.

[Shyster]

Second, she and her lawyers have realized that her recollection of events is nowhere near good enough to back up her accusations, so they hope the FBI or some other law-enforcement agency will come in and confirm the stuff that Ms. Ford believes she remembers.

When is the last time you've gone to trial before conducting an investigation?

This isn't a criminal trial. In the civil world, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to initially plead facts sufficient to, at a minimum, move their claim from the realm of merely "speculative" to the realm of "plausible." (That would be the federal standard; Pennsylvania uses a fact-pleading standard that is significantly more rigorous in pleading facts sufficient to support a claim.) Dr. Ford isn't demanding the imposition of criminal charges. She came forward specifically because she believes that Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court. It is Dr. Ford's responsibility to back up her claims. Put up or shut up.

[AuthorTony]

http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/poli ... 80919.html

President Trump said he found inspiration for his long-stalled plan to build a wall along the southern border in an unlikely spot — a memorial to 9/11 victims in Shanksville, Pa.

In a 45-minute interview with Hill.TV on Tuesday, Trump said he was impressed by the walls that comprise the Flight 93 National Memorial, constructed to honor the 44 passengers and crew who died fighting al-Qaeda terrorists who hijacked their airplane during the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. Trump spoke at the memorial last week, on the 17th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

[Willie Kool]

This isn't a criminal trial. In the civil world, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to initially plead facts sufficient to, at a minimum, move their claim from the realm of merely "speculative" to the realm of "plausible." (That would be the federal standard; Pennsylvania uses a fact-pleading standard that is significantly more rigorous in pleading facts sufficient to support a claim.) Dr. Ford isn't demanding the imposition of criminal charges. She came forward specifically because she believes that Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court. It is Dr. Ford's responsibility to back up her claims. Put up or shut up.

No, it's not civil, it's a background check:

Alleged Crime Not Committed

Security clearance adjudications do not use the same standard of evidence used in criminal proceedings. Once the government has substantial evidence that the applicant committed a crime, the burden of proof shifts to the applicant to present evidence to refute the allegation. To propound this mitigating condition there must be proof that the applicant did not commit the alleged offense. Being accused but not arrest, arrested but not prosecuted, or prosecuted but found not guilty, many not be sufficient proof of innocence, if there was insufficient evidence to meet the criminal standard to prove guilt or a technical/procedural error was made that prevented a successful criminal prosecution.

[Shyster]

Since when is an uncorroborated (and explicitly denied) accusation "substantial evidence that the applicant committed a crime"?

Also, another person named by Dr. Ford as being at the alleged party has denied it:

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

"Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics ... index.html

[tifosi77]

Second, she and her lawyers have realized that her recollection of events is nowhere near good enough to back up her accusations, so they hope the FBI or some other law-enforcement agency will come in and confirm the stuff that Ms. Ford believes she remembers.

When is the last time you've gone to trial before conducting an investigation?

This isn't a criminal trial. In the civil world, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to initially plead facts sufficient to, at a minimum, move their claim from the realm of merely "speculative" to the realm of "plausible." (That would be the federal standard; Pennsylvania uses a fact-pleading standard that is significantly more rigorous in pleading facts sufficient to support a claim.) Dr. Ford isn't demanding the imposition of criminal charges. She came forward specifically because she believes that Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court. It is Dr. Ford's responsibility to back up her claims. Put up or shut up.

This isn't about venue, it's about putting the cart before the horse.

It is also quite telling, imo, that the accuser is the one requesting the Federal Bureau of Investigation to vet her claims, not the accused requesting vindication.

[tifosi77]

Since when is an uncorroborated (and explicitly denied) accusation "substantial evidence that the applicant committed a crime"?

Also, another person named by Dr. Ford as being at the alleged party has denied it:

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

"Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics ... index.html

Ooh, look, another person unwilling to go under oath to attest to their knowledge.

[Willie Kool]

And both the supposed corroborating witnesses for Kavanaugh clearly don't want to be put under oath...

[Shyster]

It is also quite telling, imo, that the accuser is the one requesting the Federal Bureau of Investigation to vet her claims, not the accused requesting vindication.

That is your view, and you are entitled to it. My view is that she knows her story is full and holes and she might even have the wrong person (or even never happened), so she hopes the FBI will step in and end up verifying her story. And if not, then she can't be accused of perjury because she never testified under oath.

I find it quite telling that Kavanaugh is ready and willing to testify under oath but Ford is now exhibiting cold feet. If she is so certain of her accusations, then what's the problem?