Politics And Current Events

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:23 pm

If the fbi can’t/won’t conduct an investigation, then I agree, move on. I thought part of the vetting process was the fbi looking into his background. With this new information since the vetting, I thought it would fall under that.
They’ve done that 6 times. Who are they going to interview? Talk to the alleged three people that know about the incident and get no where?
How many of those 6 times involved Ford or anything about this? It wasn’t known. It would be more than just those three people who get talked to.
I guarantee they’ve interviewed many people in his past already. She remembers no more names.
The realm of interviewees would certainly be expanded. I’m sure you know that.
It’s obvious you’ve never been involved with a high level clearance before. They are looking for blackmail material and other things. This would be what they are making sure you don’t have on your record.

MWB
Posts: 8174
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:25 pm

You’re right, I’m not you. So you’re saying they would just talk to the same people, plus two? And did they talk to Ford in the previous ones? If not, why not? Enlighten me.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:30 pm

“Believes she remembers”? So your take is that she doesn’t know this happened to her, that she just thinks it did?
Other people here have posited that she might be confusing Kavanaugh with someone else. I'm not discounting the idea that she might believe that Kavanaugh assaulted her. It is possible that she believes something that isn't true.

That does raise a question I have about this, and a question I would absolutely ask if I were a Senator and she were to testify. Namely, whether she had a continuous recollection of this event from the date is allegedly occurred 36 years ago, or whether she "recovered" memories of this event while in therapy in 2012, which is the first time she apparently told anyone.

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:31 pm

You’re right, I’m not you. So you’re saying they would just talk to the same people, plus two? And did they talk to Ford in the previous ones? If not, why not? Enlighten me.
I guess they would interview the same people and whomever the new people name if they have any new people or info. It would be a waste of time for everyone involved. They can’t corroborate anything. No other witnesses and everyone else they already interviewed have already deemed him to have no material that could be used against him. So we would be back to he said she said.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:33 pm

What will the FBI find that is not already publically known?

I mean outside of waterboarding Kavanaugh and Judge.

dodint
Posts: 59156
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:40 pm

There are two investigations being talked about here. Clearance background checks, the 6 times investigation. They investigate character and specific issues that are uncovered. He has endured and passed all of these. 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.

Put a different way, knowing the FBI doesn't have a cause for action here, what kind of investigation would satisfy you, MWB? Honestly curious who conducts this and how, if you had a choice.

The difficulty of answering that question in practical terms highlights why it's important to invoke the justice system in the moment. Opting out of that doesn't mean you get a do over on your own terms at any point later in life; that's infuriating to me. I am not saying that the process is perfect or even adequate, but it's what we have agreed upon as a society and opting put doesn't entitle you to special privledges.

Anyway, off my soapbox, but I sincerely am curious what you feel, MWB, is a thorough investigation here.
Last edited by dodint on Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MWB
Posts: 8174
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:41 pm

You’re right, I’m not you. So you’re saying they would just talk to the same people, plus two? And did they talk to Ford in the previous ones? If not, why not? Enlighten me.
I guess they would interview the same people and whomever the new people name if they have any new people or info. It would be a waste of time for everyone involved. They can’t corroborate anything. No other witnesses and everyone else they already interviewed have already deemed him to have no material that could be used against him. So we would be back to he said she said.
Quite possibly. I assume family of those involved would also be interviewed. We can make an educated guess as to what would happen, and I agree it would most likely end up back at she said/he said situation. I’m not sure why it shouldn’t happen though.

MWB
Posts: 8174
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:43 pm

“Believes she remembers”? So your take is that she doesn’t know this happened to her, that she just thinks it did?
Other people here have posited that she might be confusing Kavanaugh with someone else. I'm not discounting the idea that she might believe that Kavanaugh assaulted her. It is possible that she believes something that isn't true.

That does raise a question I have about this, and a question I would absolutely ask if I were a Senator and she were to testify. Namely, whether she had a continuous recollection of this event from the date is allegedly occurred 36 years ago, or whether she "recovered" memories of this event while in therapy in 2012, which is the first time she apparently told anyone.
I’m pretty sure she’s said it’s something that has effected her throughout her life, so I don’t thing it was “recovered” in 2012. But it’s a good question to be sure of.

MWB
Posts: 8174
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:47 pm

There are two investigations being talked about here. Clearance background checks, the 6 times investigation. They investigate character and specific issues that are uncovered. He has endured and passed all of these. 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.

Put a different way, knowing the FBI doesn't have a cause for action here, what kind of investigation would satisfy you, MWB? Honestly curious who conducts this and how, if you had a choice.

The difficulty of answering that question in practical terms highlights why it's important to invoke the justice system in the moment. Opting out of that doesn't mean you get a do over on your own terms at any point later in life; that's infuriating to me. I am not saying that the process is perfect or even adequate, but it's what we have agreed upon as a society and opting put doesn't entitle you to special privledges.

Anyway, off my soapbox, but I sincerely am curious what you feel, MWB, is a thorough investigation here.
I think the fbi background check should basically be redone with this information now out. I don’t think it should be a full on criminal investigation. That opens a Pandora’s box. If this information were known during the last background check, would the check have been performed the same? I’m not sure what the downside of that is.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:47 pm

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.
Last edited by Shyster on Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dodint
Posts: 59156
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:48 pm

I’m not sure why it shouldn’t happen though.
The tactical nature of the accusation erases the goodwill required to extend them the benefit of the doubt, imo.

Even if the clock starts in 2012 she had six years. Even if she comes forward in early July when BK was nominated, fine.

But now? The perfect time to delay the confirmation? Get out, way too orchestrated to pass scritiny with me. This isn't all on Ford, either.

dodint
Posts: 59156
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:51 pm

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 Ford, he probably would refuse to answer any questions anyway.
Ohhhh, I thoight this was District jurisdiction. Yeah, that changes some things. Not the FBI involvement, but maybe the Maryland CIB or a Montgomery County agency should issue a statement if they haven't already.

MWB
Posts: 8174
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:52 pm

I’m not sure why it shouldn’t happen though.
The tactical nature of the accusation erases the goodwill required to extend them the benefit of the doubt, imo.

Even if the clock starts in 2012 she had six years. Even if she comes forward in early July when BK was nominated, fine.

But now? The perfect time to delay the confirmation? Get out, way too orchestrated to pass scritiny with me. This isn't all on Ford, either.
I think just before or after the nomination would’ve been the perfect time to put the information out if the goal was the scuttle the nomination.

dodint
Posts: 59156
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:59 pm

I think the fbi background check should basically be redone with this information now out. I don’t think it should be a full on criminal investigation. That opens a Pandora’s box. If this information were known during the last background check, would the check have been performed the same? I’m not sure what the downside of that is.
Well, the clearance investigation wouldn't automatically trigger a criminal investigation. What would have happened is he would have not been granted the clearance, effectively ending his career:
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.
As mentioned before, they're interested in your profile in terms of blackmailability. A mere accusation can make you vulnerable. Thinking of these two types of investigations as similar isn't correct.

One could interpret that standard as being so strict that the fact he passed six of them without raising an eyebrow is circumstantial evidence that he probably doesn't engage in rapist tendancies unless he's fantastically careful. But, you also get to pick who they start the investigation with so the odds start out in the investigatee's favor.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:02 pm

This is the official FBI statement, so the argument is moot as the FBI is not investigating it.
Image
I guess the next step is to contact the local Maryland police?

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:07 pm

The local Maryland authorities would be facing the same facts as the FBI would be facing: a 36-year-old accusation where the only possible witnesses have diametrically opposite stories and the accuser cannot even recall where or when this supposedly happened.

CBear3
Posts: 7662
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Politics And Current Events

Postby CBear3 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:15 pm

It was my recollection in other stories that Dr Ford gave the names of two other people at the party. They could not be reached for comment.
I wouldn’t expect them to remember her missing from a party for an hour 30 some years ago though.

MWB
Posts: 8174
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:17 pm

I think the fbi background check should basically be redone with this information now out. I don’t think it should be a full on criminal investigation. That opens a Pandora’s box. If this information were known during the last background check, would the check have been performed the same? I’m not sure what the downside of that is.
Well, the clearance investigation wouldn't automatically trigger a criminal investigation. What would have happened is he would have not been granted the clearance, effectively ending his career:
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.
As mentioned before, they're interested in your profile in terms of blackmailability. A mere accusation can make you vulnerable. Thinking of these two types of investigations as similar isn't correct.

One could interpret that standard as being so strict that the fact he passed six of them without raising an eyebrow is circumstantial evidence that he probably doesn't engage in rapist tendancies unless he's fantastically careful. But, you also get to pick who they start the investigation with so the odds start out in the investigatee's favor.
Maybe i wasn’t clear in what I think, or maybe I’m not completely following you. I don’t think it should be a criminal investigation, and that brings on all sorts of issues. I only think it should be a background check. I don’t know that just an accusation would constitute “substantial evidence.”

But maybe that’s really not the right avenue or the right agency. I just think it should be looked into, to make sure there’s not more than contrasting accounts. And as much as people say there’s just three people to talk to and we already know what they say, I think there could be a little more digging that could be done. I certainly understand this may not be pragmatic.

dodint
Posts: 59156
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:23 pm

Right. I guess what I am hearing from you is that this situation is unprecedented and requires a higher level of scrutiny than it's getting. I just don't know what that means in practical terms other than a confirmation hearing scheduled for this week has already been postponed which is a straightforward win for the Dems.

dodint
Posts: 59156
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:29 pm

An aside on this, given that SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment I don't know that security clearances even matter moving forward. If a Justice is vulnerable to blackmail what is the remedy for that; an Abe Fortas outcome? Interesting question given that BK is the least wealthy potential Justice in the modern era. Possible Charles Whittaker situation?

MWB
Posts: 8174
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:33 pm

I was wondering the same thing about the blackmail and security clearance aspect.
Long term, think this ends up being a loss for Dems. Kavanaugh will get confirmed, and more Republicans got riled up with this, so will be more likely to turn out in November.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:48 pm

In other news
North Korea's Kim Jong Un and South Korea's Moon Jae-in have signed a military pact after meeting in Pyongyang
bloom.bg/2NjAsiZ

eddy
Posts: 22309
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:49 am
Location: Emmet's barn loft

Politics And Current Events

Postby eddy » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:08 am

“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

Gaucho
Posts: 49563
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:31 pm
Location: shootzepucklefraude

Politics And Current Events

Postby Gaucho » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:10 am

What an arsehole.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:17 am

@johnlegend stars in a new ad urging the defeat of Brett Kavanaugh
https://mobile.twitter.com/aterkel/stat ... 1972101120

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Defence21, Morkle, Orlando Penguin, skullman80 and 100 guests