Politics And Current Events

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 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:53 pm

"They should just nominate someone else. We'll be totally cool with the next choice, we swear."
Things That No One is Saying, for $500, Alex.
No one is saying out loud, but Trump could nominate the Buddha and Dick Durbin would vote against him for "principles". The era of persuadable Senators not voting for the team on SCOTUS noms is long over.

Morkle
Posts: 23026
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Politics And Current Events

Postby Morkle » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pm

Kavanaugh was on Romney's list. He has a perfect rating from the ABA.

We are talking about attempted rape here. Not high school philandering anymore.

Really think anyone with a conscience would think that crime is not important to bring up?

Kavanaugh is far more Roberts than Alito and is moderatr on abortion.

The Amy Barrett lady is faaaaaar more an abortion radical than Kavanaugh and she'll be up next.
But do you bring it up against the wishes of the woman who alleges it happened? I’m not sure what the right answer is to that.
The lady has already said she'd testify today if needed.

Also, Kavanaugh has lawyered up.
I know that, but people are saying it should have come out sooner, and Democrats should have brought it out sooner.
Absolutely, my only argument is how diligent was the FBI or original investigations done. Full-stop, the conversation should have started and ended with the "baseball" ticket thing. How in any right mind did they think that the explanation was going to work?

It's about a solid of a job as this house committee that cleared the election months ago.

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pm

The era of persuadable Senators not voting for the team on SCOTUS noms is long over.
#ThanksMitch

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

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:00 pm

Kavanaugh was on Romney's list. He has a perfect rating from the ABA.

We are talking about attempted rape here. Not high school philandering anymore.

Really think anyone with a conscience would think that crime is not important to bring up?

Kavanaugh is far more Roberts than Alito and is moderatr on abortion.

The Amy Barrett lady is faaaaaar more an abortion radical than Kavanaugh and she'll be up next.
But do you bring it up against the wishes of the woman who alleges it happened? I’m not sure what the right answer is to that.
The lady has already said she'd testify today if needed.

Also, Kavanaugh has lawyered up.
I know that, but people are saying it should have come out sooner, and Democrats should have brought it out sooner.
They should have told their colleagues sooner. But politics got in the way.

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 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:00 pm

The era of persuadable Senators not voting for the team on SCOTUS noms is long over.
#ThanksMitch
:lol:

#ThanksHarryReid

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:03 pm

The era of persuadable Senators not voting for the team on SCOTUS noms is long over.
#ThanksMitch
:lol:

#ThanksHarryReid
Except Reid specifically exempted SCOTUS noms...

And Gorsuch got 3 Dem votes...

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

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:05 pm

The era of persuadable Senators not voting for the team on SCOTUS noms is long over.
#ThanksMitch
:lol:

#ThanksHarryReid
Except Reid specifically exempted SCOTUS noms...

And Gorsuch got 3 Dem votes...
:face:

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 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:05 pm

Kavanaugh was on Romney's list. He has a perfect rating from the ABA.

We are talking about attempted rape here. Not high school philandering anymore.

Really think anyone with a conscience would think that crime is not important to bring up?

Kavanaugh is far more Roberts than Alito and is moderatr on abortion.

The Amy Barrett lady is faaaaaar more an abortion radical than Kavanaugh and she'll be up next.
But do you bring it up against the wishes of the woman who alleges it happened? I’m not sure what the right answer is to that.
The lady has already said she'd testify today if needed.

Also, Kavanaugh has lawyered up.
I know that, but people are saying it should have come out sooner, and Democrats should have brought it out sooner.
Absolutely, my only argument is how diligent was the FBI or original investigations done. Full-stop, the conversation should have started and ended with the "baseball" ticket thing. How in any right mind did they think that the explanation was going to work?

It's about a solid of a job as this house committee that cleared the election months ago.
He's had 6 FBI investigations, so I'd assume the ones they did for his security clearance in the Bush admin were pretty thorough.

Also, the Baseball ticket thing? It was shown that he was spending a lot to keep up with the Jones's and paid off the debt using his $200k salary over several years. Ironically he would be, by some measure, the poorest of all the justices on the court.

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 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:17 pm

Senior GOP senate staffer tells me Grassley is working to schedule a background call with Ford. He described that as "standard practice." Says Dems are balking at the idea and demanding an FBI investigation. FBI already publicly said it isn't opening a new investigation.
https://twitter.com/StephenGutowski/sta ... 3122170881

tifosi77
Posts: 51513
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 pm

Kavanaugh hasn't been all that "quick" in comparison to others. There is a meme going around that this was "rushed", but it falls into a fairly normal timeline.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/past- ... timelines/
Right, that's my point. I'm not saying anything is unique to Kavanaugh. The start of the October session drives rapidity.

Kaiser
Posts: 5391
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:35 pm
Location: In these uncertain times

Politics And Current Events

Postby Kaiser » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:18 pm

If we don't figure out who to blame for this, the system is in trouble!

tifosi77
Posts: 51513
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:30 pm

He's had 6 FBI investigations, so I'd assume the ones they did for his security clearance in the Bush admin were pretty thorough.
Does such vetting cover the subject's conduct as a minor? I honestly do not know.

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 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:39 pm

I highly doubt they would unless there was a sealed juvenile record, which I'm sure at the higher end of those clearances they would get unsealed.

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 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:44 pm

Two women who dated Kavanaugh in high school...seriously...are now "on the record".
Image
https://twitter.com/costareports/status ... 5610925059

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:48 pm

He's had 6 FBI investigations, so I'd assume the ones they did for his security clearance in the Bush admin were pretty thorough.
Does such vetting cover the subject's conduct as a minor? I honestly do not know.
For the SF-86, yes, expunged juvenile records are unsealed.

But, since the accuser never bothered to mention this during a period of time that the justice system could have taken action there is no investigation or conviction to unseal. Coming out with an unprovable accusation at this late date is a circumvention of the criminal justice process and an obvious political ploy, but, alas.

To answer more indirectly, when you get a high level clearance they send someone to sit and talk with family/friends/acquaintances. They're trying to find out if there is anything in your past that would make you vulnerable to blackmail. You can infer that he was investigated six times and this event or others like it were never mentioned else it would've become a focal point of said investigations.

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

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:50 pm

He's had 6 FBI investigations, so I'd assume the ones they did for his security clearance in the Bush admin were pretty thorough.
Does such vetting cover the subject's conduct as a minor? I honestly do not know.
For the SF-86, yes, expunged juvenile records are unsealed.

But, since the accuser never bothered to mention this during a period of time that the justice system could have taken action there is no investigation or conviction to unseal. Coming out with an unprovable accusation at this late date is a circumvention of the criminal justice process and an obvious political ploy, but, alas.

To answer more indirectly, when you get a high level clearance they send someone to sit and talk with family/friends/acquaintances. They're trying to find out if there is anything in your past that would make you vulnerable to blackmail. You can infer that he was investigated six times and this event or others like it were never mentioned else it would've become a focal point of said investigations.
Yeah. They interviewed a next door neighbor of mine from when I was 14, and college professors.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:52 pm

Yeah, that's why they're so expensive (and make you marketable to private employers once you've secured a clearance with SSBI).

tifosi77
Posts: 51513
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:57 pm

He's had 6 FBI investigations, so I'd assume the ones they did for his security clearance in the Bush admin were pretty thorough.
Does such vetting cover the subject's conduct as a minor? I honestly do not know.
For the SF-86, yes, expunged juvenile records are unsealed.

But, since the accuser never bothered to mention this during a period of time that the justice system could have taken action there is no investigation or conviction to unseal. Coming out with an unprovable accusation at this late date is a circumvention of the criminal justice process and an obvious political ploy, but, alas.

To answer more indirectly, when you get a high level clearance they send someone to sit and talk with family/friends/acquaintances. They're trying to find out if there is anything in your past that would make you vulnerable to blackmail. You can infer that he was investigated six times and this event or others like it were never mentioned else it would've become a focal point of said investigations.
I guess the broader point of the question is more along the lines of "If there was no police record of this, and the accuser was only an acquaintance, would the FBI have any reason to question her, or others similarly disposed?"

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:01 pm

He's had 6 FBI investigations, so I'd assume the ones they did for his security clearance in the Bush admin were pretty thorough.
Does such vetting cover the subject's conduct as a minor? I honestly do not know.
For the SF-86, yes, expunged juvenile records are unsealed.

But, since the accuser never bothered to mention this during a period of time that the justice system could have taken action there is no investigation or conviction to unseal. Coming out with an unprovable accusation at this late date is a circumvention of the criminal justice process and an obvious political ploy, but, alas.

To answer more indirectly, when you get a high level clearance they send someone to sit and talk with family/friends/acquaintances. They're trying to find out if there is anything in your past that would make you vulnerable to blackmail. You can infer that he was investigated six times and this event or others like it were never mentioned else it would've become a focal point of said investigations.
I guess the broader point of the question is more along the lines of "If there was no police record of this, and the accuser was only an acquaintance, would the FBI have any reason to question her, or others similarly disposed?"
That's what I was wondering as well. Why would they talk to her?

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:02 pm

Kavanaugh was on Romney's list. He has a perfect rating from the ABA.

We are talking about attempted rape here. Not high school philandering anymore.

Really think anyone with a conscience would think that crime is not important to bring up?

Kavanaugh is far more Roberts than Alito and is moderatr on abortion.

The Amy Barrett lady is faaaaaar more an abortion radical than Kavanaugh and she'll be up next.
But do you bring it up against the wishes of the woman who alleges it happened? I’m not sure what the right answer is to that.
The lady has already said she'd testify today if needed.

Also, Kavanaugh has lawyered up.
I know that, but people are saying it should have come out sooner, and Democrats should have brought it out sooner.
They should have told their colleagues sooner. But politics got in the way.
What and when should they have told their colleagues, and what about the wishes of Ford?

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Politics And Current Events

Postby dodint » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:02 pm

I guess the broader point of the question is more along the lines of "If there was no police record of this, and the accuser was only an acquaintance, would the FBI have any reason to question her, or others similarly disposed?"
Probably not. But, if she had raised the issue earlier in his career it would've shown up during subsequent investigations.

Also, isn't the implication that this kind of 'sexual predator' behavior isn't a one time thing and that he's an incurable serial rapist at heart? If so, certainly someone would have mentioned it during any of the investigations. And if that's not the premise we're operating under here, what's the point of this again?

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:04 pm

"They should just nominate someone else. We'll be totally cool with the next choice, we swear."
Things That No One is Saying, for $500, Alex.
No one is saying out loud, but Trump could nominate the Buddha and Dick Durbin would vote against him for "principles". The era of persuadable Senators not voting for the team on SCOTUS noms is long over.
That's what I mean... there aren't any Dems out there saying that they'll be fine with the next choice.

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 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:06 pm



But do you bring it up against the wishes of the woman who alleges it happened? I’m not sure what the right answer is to that.
The lady has already said she'd testify today if needed.

Also, Kavanaugh has lawyered up.
I know that, but people are saying it should have come out sooner, and Democrats should have brought it out sooner.
They should have told their colleagues sooner. But politics got in the way.
What and when should they have told their colleagues, and what about the wishes of Ford?
I mean I hate to keep saying this, but we are not talking about Al Franken levels of groping or inappropriate comments, but an attempted forcible rape, sexual assault, with an element of something much worse with the part about the covering up of the mouth.

If that was reported to you, when exactly would you think would be the right time to tell your own party's folks, let alone the opposite party?

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:06 pm

I guess the broader point of the question is more along the lines of "If there was no police record of this, and the accuser was only an acquaintance, would the FBI have any reason to question her, or others similarly disposed?"
Probably not. But, if she had raised the issue earlier in his career it would've shown up during subsequent investigations.

Also, isn't the implication that this kind of 'sexual predator' behavior isn't a one time thing and that he's an incurable serial rapist at heart? If so, certainly someone would have mentioned it during any of the investigations. And if that's not the premise we're operating under here, what's the point of this again?
I'm not sure the implication is that he's a serial rapist. Maybe for some it is though. However, for argument's sake, let's say her version of events is true. A one-time thing. Should someone that did that be on the Supreme Court? That becomes the question.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MWB » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:11 pm

I mean I hate to keep saying this, but we are not talking about Al Franken levels of groping or inappropriate comments, but an attempted forcible rape, sexual assault, with an element of something much worse with the part about the covering up of the mouth.

If that was reported to you, when exactly would you think would be the right time to tell your own party's folks, let alone the opposite party?
Ford didn't want this out, correct? Now, I'm not saying that it was kept quiet because of that, but do they have more of a moral responsibility to spread the word or to keep it quiet for Ford, who wanted it kept confidential?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nocera, skullman80, the wicked child and 107 guests