Politics And Current Events

[MWB]

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

Shouldn’t the background check be done to determine if there is substantial evidence?

So they need to conduct an investigation to see whether there is any basis to conduct an investigation?

No, as I said last night, I think that given this new information they should redo the background investigation (or do another one) and present their findings. Nothing more than that.

[MWB]

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.

The part that upsets you is democrats believing this woman because it's politically advantageous, as opposed to attacking a potential rape victim because it's politically advantageous.

Until we've lived in the slippery slope world where every man is subject to being ostracized for made up sexual assault allegations, I'm much more inclined to believe these women that come forward than not, and wait to express sympathy for the poor men like Brett Kavanaugh that have to deal with the aftermath of the accusation.

Feinstein had this information for months and waited to release it. This should have been front and center the second Kavanaugh was selected, unless the nomination was before she received the information. You also believe that all these people remember the party and alleged event yet none of this came up one time in any one of the 6 FBI investigations?

Accusations now are somehow proof and you must prove you're innocent. Both parties should be questioned about the events under oath, and possibly connected to a polygraph. The he said/she said media frenzy is only going to continue with no new information provided other than random people coming out for one side or the other.

Ford already did the polygraph and it supposedly supported her claim. That said, who knows how reliable that is.

[grunthy]

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.

The part that upsets you is democrats believing this woman because it's politically advantageous, as opposed to attacking a potential rape victim because it's politically advantageous.

Until we've lived in the slippery slope world where every man is subject to being ostracized for made up sexual assault allegations, I'm much more inclined to believe these women that come forward than not, and wait to express sympathy for the poor men like Brett Kavanaugh that have to deal with the aftermath of the accusation.

Feinstein had this information for months and waited to release it. This should have been front and center the second Kavanaugh was selected, unless the nomination was before she received the information. You also believe that all these people remember the party and alleged event yet none of this came up one time in any one of the 6 FBI investigations?

Accusations now are somehow proof and you must prove you're innocent. Both parties should be questioned about the events under oath, and possibly connected to a polygraph. The he said/she said media frenzy is only going to continue with no new information provided other than random people coming out for one side or the other.

Ford already did the polygraph and it supposedly supported her claim. That said, who knows how reliable that is.

Roy Moore “passed” a polygraph.

[Freddy Rumsen]

There's a reason why polygraphs are not accepted by any court of law

[MWB]

Which is why I had the last sentence there.

[grunthy]

Which is why I had the last sentence there.

It shouldn’t be included for credibility of her claims. So we should just stop with even mentioning it.

[Shyster]

Ford already did the polygraph and it supposedly supported her claim. That said, who knows how reliable that is.

Not reliable at all. There's a reason that polygraphs are inadmissible in court.

[MWB]

I hear that polygraphs aren’t reliable... is that true?!?!?

LBL mentioned it, so I said it was already done, and questioned reliability.

[tifosi77]

Feinstein had this information for months and waited to release it.

The letter to Feinstein was dated July 30th, and it was forwarded to the FBI sometime on or around September 13th. So it's more like six weeks than 'months'. Also, I'm not sure Feinstein was going to do anything publicly re the letter until a news story about its existence was printed. (Admittedly that leak could've come from, Feinstein herself, Congresswoman Eshoo, or any number of people on their respective staffs.)

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

So you think the accusations are enough to deem him guilty but don't want him to face criminal repercussions?

Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. I have no reason to think the woman is lying. I believe he probably did something untoward to this woman a long time ago. Whether that was coming on a little too forceful, or doing what the woman alleged, that will of course never be known, and we don't need to know, because this should not be litigated, nor should it impact this hearing.

That said, I do have a problem with people accusing the woman of making this up. She made the accusation in July, well before the hearings and it should have been part of any background check, and if this behavior was something other than an isolated act from Kavanaugh, it likely would have been revealed. But absent that, it coming out now is a political move from the dems, but at the same time, is keeping that allegation a secret really the best course? We just had this public spectacle and public outpouring from all walks of this guys left talking about what a super guy he is. Imagine what that must have been like for this woman?

Don't get me wrong I believe he could or couldn't have done this but you seem to be in the light of the accusation is enough to make him not fit for the position. That to me is wrong, he shouldn't be punished if he didn't do it. Now if he did do it, obviously he has no place on the Supreme Court.

There, I believe, have been more backing her side, or at least standing with her. The timing of the release is what puts me into the unsure territory. With the me too movement most of these accusations have either been proven or admitted to. It just seems like such a slam dunk for the Democrats to put this front and center the second they learned to remove him from consideration.

[tifosi77]

Ford already did the polygraph and it supposedly supported her claim. That said, who knows how reliable that is.

Not reliable at all. There's a reason that polygraphs are inadmissible in court.

They're reliable enough that they are used every day in a non-evidentiary capacity.

And they are indeed admissible in court proceedings in several states, including Florida, California, Georgia, and Nevada; in Florida, some defendants can even be compelled to take one, although the results in those instances will not be used either for or against the defendant in court. In other states, polygraph results can be used to support probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

I'm wishy washy on their reliability, because they can indeed be deliberately or inadvertently spoofed (you can get both false positives and false negatives). I don't think that's the case here, but I'm just noting that the accuser's polygraph results shouldn't be dismissed outright.

[tifosi77]

The FBI already declared they have no intention of investigating as they have no basis in which to conduct one.

Again, that's taking from the perspective of opening a criminal inquiry, for which I agree there is no federal jurisdiction. But the President could ask them to reopen their background investigation into Kavanaugh, as he is the client for the work product.

[Troy Loney]

So you think the accusations are enough to deem him guilty but don't want him to face criminal repercussions?

Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. I have no reason to think the woman is lying. I believe he probably did something untoward to this woman a long time ago. Whether that was coming on a little too forceful, or doing what the woman alleged, that will of course never be known, and we don't need to know, because this should not be litigated, nor should it impact this hearing.

That said, I do have a problem with people accusing the woman of making this up. She made the accusation in July, well before the hearings and it should have been part of any background check, and if this behavior was something other than an isolated act from Kavanaugh, it likely would have been revealed. But absent that, it coming out now is a political move from the dems, but at the same time, is keeping that allegation a secret really the best course? We just had this public spectacle and public outpouring from all walks of this guys left talking about what a super guy he is. Imagine what that must have been like for this woman?

Don't get me wrong I believe he could or couldn't have done this but you seem to be in the light of the accusation is enough to make him not fit for the position. That to me is wrong, he shouldn't be punished if he didn't do it. Now if he did do it, obviously he has no place on the Supreme Court.

There, I believe, have been more backing her side, or at least standing with her. The timing of the release is what puts me into the unsure territory. With the me too movement most of these accusations have either been proven or admitted to. It just seems like such a slam dunk for the Democrats to put this front and center the second they learned to remove him from consideration.

I've said repeatedly that I don't think the accusation has bearing on the confirmation.

I'm pushing back against the notion that the woman is lying or politically motivated. And then pushing back on the refrain to that where refusing to dismiss the allegation is somehow tied to "innocent until proven guilty".

[Troy Loney]

The FBI already declared they have no intention of investigating as they have no basis in which to conduct one.

Again, that's taking from the perspective of opening a criminal inquiry, for which I agree there is no federal jurisdiction. But the President could ask them to reopen their background investigation into Kavanaugh, as he is the client for the work product.

It seems like the bad faith arguing here is based on conflating criminal hearings with this confirmation hearing.

[grunthy]

Ford already did the polygraph and it supposedly supported her claim. That said, who knows how reliable that is.

Not reliable at all. There's a reason that polygraphs are inadmissible in court.

They're reliable enough that they are used every day in a non-evidentiary capacity.

And they are indeed admissible in court proceedings in several states, including Florida, California, Georgia, and Nevada; in Florida, some defendants can even be compelled to take one, although the results in those instances will not be used either for or against the defendant in court. In other states, polygraph results can be used to support probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

I'm wishy washy on their reliability, because they can indeed be deliberately or inadvertently spoofed (you can get both false positives and false negatives). I don't think that's the case here, but I'm just noting that the accuser's polygraph results shouldn't be dismissed outright.

In California, Georgia and Nevada both parties have to agree.

Yeah they should be dismissed. What were the questions used? Saying she “passed” means nothing to me. She should release her results for people to see. Even then they mean nothing though.

[grunthy]

So you think the accusations are enough to deem him guilty but don't want him to face criminal repercussions?

Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. I have no reason to think the woman is lying. I believe he probably did something untoward to this woman a long time ago. Whether that was coming on a little too forceful, or doing what the woman alleged, that will of course never be known, and we don't need to know, because this should not be litigated, nor should it impact this hearing.

That said, I do have a problem with people accusing the woman of making this up. She made the accusation in July, well before the hearings and it should have been part of any background check, and if this behavior was something other than an isolated act from Kavanaugh, it likely would have been revealed. But absent that, it coming out now is a political move from the dems, but at the same time, is keeping that allegation a secret really the best course? We just had this public spectacle and public outpouring from all walks of this guys left talking about what a super guy he is. Imagine what that must have been like for this woman?

Don't get me wrong I believe he could or couldn't have done this but you seem to be in the light of the accusation is enough to make him not fit for the position. That to me is wrong, he shouldn't be punished if he didn't do it. Now if he did do it, obviously he has no place on the Supreme Court.

There, I believe, have been more backing her side, or at least standing with her. The timing of the release is what puts me into the unsure territory. With the me too movement most of these accusations have either been proven or admitted to. It just seems like such a slam dunk for the Democrats to put this front and center the second they learned to remove him from consideration.

I've said repeatedly that I don't think the accusation has bearing on the confirmation.

I'm pushing back against the notion that the woman is lying or politically motivated. And then pushing back on the refrain to that where refusing to dismiss the allegation is somehow tied to "innocent until proven guilty".

But you believe that a person who has a great judging career, no records of misconduct, and has been cleared from 6 federal background checks most likely attempted to rape this person?

[Lemon Berry Lobster]

So you think the accusations are enough to deem him guilty but don't want him to face criminal repercussions?

Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. I have no reason to think the woman is lying. I believe he probably did something untoward to this woman a long time ago. Whether that was coming on a little too forceful, or doing what the woman alleged, that will of course never be known, and we don't need to know, because this should not be litigated, nor should it impact this hearing.

That said, I do have a problem with people accusing the woman of making this up. She made the accusation in July, well before the hearings and it should have been part of any background check, and if this behavior was something other than an isolated act from Kavanaugh, it likely would have been revealed. But absent that, it coming out now is a political move from the dems, but at the same time, is keeping that allegation a secret really the best course? We just had this public spectacle and public outpouring from all walks of this guys left talking about what a super guy he is. Imagine what that must have been like for this woman?

Don't get me wrong I believe he could or couldn't have done this but you seem to be in the light of the accusation is enough to make him not fit for the position. That to me is wrong, he shouldn't be punished if he didn't do it. Now if he did do it, obviously he has no place on the Supreme Court.

There, I believe, have been more backing her side, or at least standing with her. The timing of the release is what puts me into the unsure territory. With the me too movement most of these accusations have either been proven or admitted to. It just seems like such a slam dunk for the Democrats to put this front and center the second they learned to remove him from consideration.

I've said repeatedly that I don't think the accusation has bearing on the confirmation.

I'm pushing back against the notion that the woman is lying or politically motivated. And then pushing back on the refrain to that where refusing to dismiss the allegation is somehow tied to "innocent until proven guilty".

Sorry I must have missed when you stated your case about the confirmation.

I don't think she is lying, but it is possible she isn't remembering the events correctly. I am not trying to discredit her as I am sure this kind of event happens far too often, but there appears to be holes in her story that I think need clarified. To be fair I can't recall every detail of a party I was at when I was their age and that's only 14 years ago. Like I said I believe they both need to present their accounts under oath and then the information should be processed accordingly.

[MWB]

I think a lot of people here believe it’s possible this happened and should be clarified as much as possible. Weighing everything that goes into this, it’s tough for some to see how this is something she’d lie about. Saying that doesn’t mean that should automatically be believed or that Kavanaugh should be disqualified.

[Freddy Rumsen]

I think most of us can also agree that the politicians charged with treating her case and receiving her information have handled this about as bad as humanly possible.

[dodint]

TL,

What about 2012 to 2018?

[Freddy Rumsen]

Gillibrand said on CNN that Christine Ford shouldn't participate in "sham hearing" on Monday.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidRutz/st ... 9327536130

[AuthorTony]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/19/1787 ... bs-tariffs

Alibaba’s founder and chairman Jack Ma says the Chinese mega e-commerce company no longer has plans to create 1 million jobs in the US, citing the ongoing trade conflict as the reason Alibaba is retracting its promise to Donald Trump. A new round of tariffs between the US and China will make mutual trade more difficult.

Ma told Chinese state-run news outlet Xinhua today that his promise was based on the assumption that the US and China would have “rational trade relations,” which is no longer the case. “This promise was based on friendly US-China partnership and rational trade relations,” Ma said. “The current situation has already ruined that. There is no way to complete the promise now, but we won’t stop working hard to promote the healthy development of China-US trade.”

[Willie Kool]

Dark money no more...

A Supreme Court action Tuesday struck a blow to a conservative group's effort to shield its donors and could lead to more disclosure of who funds so-called dark money groups.

The court's unexpected action quickly set off a scramble among Washington operatives to change the way political nonprofits raise and disclose millions of dollars being spent on the midterm elections. The ruling invalidates, at least temporarily, a decades-old regulation that allows dark money groups to shield their donors.

"People are scrambling this afternoon. They’re saying, 'We thought this was a problem for the next election,'" said Brett Kappel, partner at Akerman LLP. And for political nonprofits, "you’ll have to change the way you solicit funds."

The decision Tuesday relates to a Federal Election Commission regulation that said independent political groups only had to name donors when their gifts were linked to specific sets of TV ads or mailers. A federal judge last month struck down that rule.

The conservative group Crossroads GPS, hoping to avoid having to disclose its donors right before the 2018 midterms, asked the Supreme Court to freeze the lower court's ruling and leave the old FEC regulation in place through November. But on Tuesday, the high court declined to do so.

The Supreme Court's decision means groups making independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates running for Congress this fall may have a legal obligation to disclose their donors, even if they could have remained anonymous in past cycles.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/ ... ure-828419

[tifosi77]

I think most of us can also agree that the politicians charged with treating her case and receiving her information have handled this about as bad as humanly possible.

Almost immediately after receiving the letter, Feinstein aides went to the Ethics Committee to see if the Judiciary Committee could engage an independent third party to investigate the claims. She was referred to the Rules Committee, who told her she'd have to get approval from the chairs of Ethics, Rules, and Judiciary, which would've exploded her constituent's desire for confidentiality. With no assurance that Dr Ford would come forward, there really wasn't anything else she could do.

[MWB]

Yeah, but we’ve got to blame someone for this happening, so...