Republicans War on Women

Posts : 6988

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Yes, the sanity and rationality virtually oozes from the pores of these people, does it not?

Scorpion wrote:: The GOP and Trump could have avoided this if they simply did a real investigation. Many people wanted to testify but they were silenced.

Feinstein and the Democrats could have avoided this if they simply did a "real investigation" when the allegations initially surfaced.
And, incidentally - what exactly is a "real investigation"?
One in which you get the precise results that you had hoped for?

Scorpion wrote:: The GOP has now all but officially declared war on women.

How?
By nominating someone to the Supreme Court who has not been proven to be guilty of any of the ridiculous accusations of the Left?

The 2000 presidential election.
The 2004 presidential election.
The 2016 presidential election.
The Kavanagh nomination.
Good Lord.
Can't you people ever just accept the fact that your side is not entitled to win every goddam thing?
Can't you ever just gracefully concede sometimes?
Does some line of code in your DNA demand that you must act like spoiled fucking children each and every time you don't get your way?
Grow the fuck up.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: Grow the fuck up

.

You really don't get it, do you? I'm not going to debate the past with you. It's not relevant to what happened this past week. Ever read Lysistrata?

Seriously, though, it's never a good idea to piss off the women. If they want a full investigation, including more live Senate testimony, perhaps even a polygraph for Kavanaugh, then that's what should be done.

I know that would interfere with the GOP agenda, but that's what needed to be done. Alternatively, the move should have been made to dump Kavanaugh and just pick the next name on the Federalist Society list. There would have still been time to vote on a new nominee in the lame duck session. I seriously doubt if the Democrats will take back the Senate anyway, so that's most likely a moot point.

Instead we got what amounted to "Wham Bam Thank You M'am." Bad vibes...

Posts : 6988

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.

The nerve of these women, suggesting to their daughters that they not dress like sluts in public!!!!

OK, Ms. Grenell: I'm gonna start to back away verrrry slowly as I tell you that getting your crazy out all at once, in one single op-ed, is probably a good idea.
If you let stuff like this simmer for too long, there is a chance you might explode.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/lisa-murkowski-susan-collins-kavanaugh.html

White Women, Come Get Your People
They will defend their privilege to the death

By Alexis Grenell
Ms. Grenell has written on gender and politics for The New York Daily News, The Washington Post and other outlets.
Oct. 6, 2018

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.
These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.
They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”
These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday.
But the people who scare me the most are the mothers, sisters and wives of those young men, because my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.
We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. Since 1952, white women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, according to an analysis by Jane Junn, a political scientist at the University of Southern California.
Women of color, and specifically black women, make the margin of difference for Democrats. The voting patterns of white women and white men mirror each other much more closely, and they tend to cast their ballots for Republicans. The gender gap in politics is really a color line.
That’s because white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return they’re placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” as Speaker Paul D. Ryan has said about women, but all the while denied basic rights.
This elevated position over women of color comes at a cost, though. Consider what Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to the president, said at a dinner last year for New York’s Conservative Party. She suggested that higher birthrates are “how I think we fight these demographic wars moving forward.” The war, of course, is with non-white people. So it seems that white women are expected to support the patriarchy by marrying within their racial group, reproducing whiteness and even minimizing violence against their own bodies.
Recently, Ms. Conway even weaponized her own alleged sexual assault in service to her boss by discouraging women from feeling empathy with Christine Blasey Ford or anger at Judge Kavanaugh.
Ms. Conway knows that a woman who steps out of line may be ridiculed by the president himself. President Trump mocked Dr. Blasey in front of a cheering crowd on Tuesday evening. Betray the patriarchy and your whiteness won’t save you.
The pedestal is a superior, if precarious, place. For white women, it’s apparently better than being “stronger together,” with the 94 percent of black women and 86 percent of Latinas who voted for Hillary Clinton.
During the 2016 presidential election, did white women really vote with their whiteness in mind? Lorrie Frasure-Yokley, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., recently measured the effect of racial identity on white women’s willingness to support Trump in 2016 and found a positive and statistically significant relationship. So white women who voted for him did so to prop up their whiteness.
In the study, white women who agreed that “many women interpret innocent remarks or acts as sexist” were 17 percent more likely to vote for a Republican candidate. They were also likely to agree that “blacks should work their way up without special favors.” To be sure, women of color aren’t inherently less sexist or even without their own racial biases. But unlike white women, they can’t use race privilege to their advantage.
This blood pact between white men and white women is at issue in the November midterms. President Trump knows it, and at that Tuesday news conference, he signaled to white women to hold the line: “The people that have complained to me about it the most about what’s happening are women. Women are very angry,” he said. “I have men that don’t like it, but I have women that are incensed at what’s going on.”
I’m sure he does “have” them; game girls will defend their privilege to the death.
But apparently that doesn’t include Ms. Murkowski anymore. Maybe it’s because she comes from a state with the nation’s highest rate of sexual violence, with a sexual assault rate three times the national average, where prosecutors just let a man evade jail time after he kidnapped a native Alaskan woman and strangled her unconscious, then masturbated over her body. Maybe.
Meanwhile, Senator Collins subjected us to a slow funeral dirge about due process and some other nonsense I couldn’t even hear through my rage headache as she announced on Friday she would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Her mostly male colleagues applauded her.
The question for white women in November is: Which one of these two women are you?
I fear we already know the answer.

Posts : 6988

https://freebeacon.com/politics/new-yorker-reporter-suggests-ran-ramirez-accusation-show-true-pattern/New Yorker

Reporter Suggests She Ran With Ramirez Accusation to Show ‘If True … There Was a Pattern’

BY: David Rutz
October 9, 2018 1:20 pm

New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer suggested in a new interview that she and Ronan Farrow reported on Deborah Ramirez's uncorroborated accusation of misconduct by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh out of eagerness to show a "pattern" of such behavior.
The veteran journalist told Elle her recollections of the Clarence Thomas hearings, the treatment of Anita Hill by the Senate, and the public informed her judgment regarding Kavanaugh.
"So having watched this before, I knew that key issues would be whether the judge had a pattern of similar behavior, since that helps establish who is telling the truth when there is a standoff, and whether there were credible corroborators on either side," she said. "Knowing this is why Ronan Farrow and I were so alert to the significance of other accusers, such as Deborah Ramirez. Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."

.........

"Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."

And if not true, and they reported it anyway before getting the facts, the reporters are simply fucking liars and character assassins.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: https://freebeacon.com/politics/new-yorker-reporter-suggests-ran-ramirez-accusation-show-true-pattern/New Yorker

Reporter Suggests She Ran With Ramirez Accusation to Show ‘If True … There Was a Pattern’

BY: David Rutz
October 9, 2018 1:20 pm

New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer suggested in a new interview that she and Ronan Farrow reported on Deborah Ramirez's uncorroborated accusation of misconduct by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh out of eagerness to show a "pattern" of such behavior.
The veteran journalist told Elle her recollections of the Clarence Thomas hearings, the treatment of Anita Hill by the Senate, and the public informed her judgment regarding Kavanaugh.
"So having watched this before, I knew that key issues would be whether the judge had a pattern of similar behavior, since that helps establish who is telling the truth when there is a standoff, and whether there were credible corroborators on either side," she said. "Knowing this is why Ronan Farrow and I were so alert to the significance of other accusers, such as Deborah Ramirez. Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."

.........

"Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."

And if not true, and they reported it anyway before getting the facts, the reporters are simply fucking liars and character assassins.

Do you have a link that actually works? Maybe a link to the New Yorker piece? Something? Anything?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: https://freebeacon.com/politics/new-yorker-reporter-suggests-ran-ramirez-accusation-show-true-pattern/New Yorker

Reporter Suggests She Ran With Ramirez Accusation to Show ‘If True … There Was a Pattern’

BY: David Rutz
October 9, 2018 1:20 pm

New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer suggested in a new interview that she and Ronan Farrow reported on Deborah Ramirez's uncorroborated accusation of misconduct by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh out of eagerness to show a "pattern" of such behavior.
The veteran journalist told Elle her recollections of the Clarence Thomas hearings, the treatment of Anita Hill by the Senate, and the public informed her judgment regarding Kavanaugh.
"So having watched this before, I knew that key issues would be whether the judge had a pattern of similar behavior, since that helps establish who is telling the truth when there is a standoff, and whether there were credible corroborators on either side," she said. "Knowing this is why Ronan Farrow and I were so alert to the significance of other accusers, such as Deborah Ramirez. Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."

.........

"Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."

And if not true, and they reported it anyway before getting the facts, the reporters are simply fucking liars and character assassins.

Do you have a link that actually works? Maybe a link to the New Yorker piece? Something? Anything?

Yeah, the link is not working for me, either, for whatever reason. Try this:

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a23626662/new-yorker-jane-mayer-brett-kavanaugh-ronan-farrow/

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: https://freebeacon.com/politics/new-yorker-reporter-suggests-ran-ramirez-accusation-show-true-pattern/New Yorker

Reporter Suggests She Ran With Ramirez Accusation to Show ‘If True … There Was a Pattern’

BY: David Rutz
October 9, 2018 1:20 pm

New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer suggested in a new interview that she and Ronan Farrow reported on Deborah Ramirez's uncorroborated accusation of misconduct by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh out of eagerness to show a "pattern" of such behavior.
The veteran journalist told Elle her recollections of the Clarence Thomas hearings, the treatment of Anita Hill by the Senate, and the public informed her judgment regarding Kavanaugh.
"So having watched this before, I knew that key issues would be whether the judge had a pattern of similar behavior, since that helps establish who is telling the truth when there is a standoff, and whether there were credible corroborators on either side," she said. "Knowing this is why Ronan Farrow and I were so alert to the significance of other accusers, such as Deborah Ramirez. Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."

.........

"Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."

And if not true, and they reported it anyway before getting the facts, the reporters are simply fucking liars and character assassins.

Do you have a link that actually works? Maybe a link to the New Yorker piece? Something? Anything?

Yeah, the link is not working for me, either, for whatever reason. Try this:

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a23626662/new-yorker-jane-mayer-brett-kavanaugh-ronan-farrow/

happy jack wrote:: "Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge."[/i]
And if not true, and they reported it anyway before getting the facts, the reporters are simply fucking liars and character assassins.

They reported that there were witnesses who wanted to come forward. That's what journalists are supposed to do...

She goes on to say..

"Similarly, it was very important to get Elizabeth Rasor on the record. She was the college girlfriend of Brett Kavanaugh’s best high school friend, Mark Judge. Kavanaugh has used Judge as one of his corroborators and a character witness attesting to the impossibility that they could have mistreated girls in high school (Judge has said they attended an all-boys school, so they never “rough-housed” with girls). To the contrary, Rasor told me that Mark Judge told her that he and his high school friends had taken turns having sex with the same inebriated woman. Rasor, who is now a teacher and a mother, came forward, she said, because she couldn’t stand to sit by and watch Judge lie. Judge’s lawyer said he categorically denied it, but Rasor offered to give a signed statement to the F.B.I."

C'mon Jack ... don't you think this stuff needed to be looked into?

Jack........ Have you watched Ms Ford's testimony yet?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: C'mon Jack ... don't you think this stuff needed to be looked into?

Certainly.
It should be looked into, and then reported.
Not vice versa.

Scorpion wrote:: Jack........ Have you watched Ms Ford's testimony yet?

No. On the day of the testimony, I missed it due to my schedule. I caught Kavanagh's testimony, live, part on radio and part on television. By the time I even considered digging up video of her testimony, I had pretty much heard about everything that was in it, so it seemed about as useful as watching a ball game in which you already know the final score.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: C'mon Jack ... don't you think this stuff needed to be looked into?

Certainly.
It should be looked into, and then reported.
Not vice versa.

Again, the existence of witnesses was what was reported... know why? Because they exist.

Scorpion wrote:: Jack........ Have you watched Ms Ford's testimony yet?

Quote :: No. On the day of the testimony, I missed it due to my schedule. I caught Kavanagh's testimony, live, part on radio and part on television. By the time I even considered digging up video of her testimony, I had pretty much heard about everything that was in it, so it seemed about as useful as watching a ball game in which you already know the final score.

Gotta watch it, Jack. You'll never understand this situation fully until you do. Man, that is cold ... comparing it to a ball game. And trust me, you don't know what the "final score" is going to be... Sometimes you have to see the beginning of a movie in order to understand the whole story. You missed it, Jack. How can I discuss this story with you when you haven't even seen the "lead actress performance?"

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Gotta watch it, Jack. You'll never understand this situation fully until you do. Man, that is cold ... comparing it to a ball game. And trust me, you don't know what the "final score" is going to be... Sometimes you have to see the beginning of a movie in order to understand the whole story. You missed it, Jack. How can I discuss this story with you when you haven't even seen the "lead actress performance?"

If I were you, I would not cling to the hope that I will waste my time watching God-knows-how-many hours of testimony that is already moot, that Kavanagh will somehow find out that I watched the rerun, and that Kavanagh will subsequently step down solely because of my actions.
You don't really think that will happen, do you?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Gotta watch it, Jack. You'll never understand this situation fully until you do. Man, that is cold ... comparing it to a ball game. And trust me, you don't know what the "final score" is going to be... Sometimes you have to see the beginning of a movie in order to understand the whole story. You missed it, Jack. How can I discuss this story with you when you haven't even seen the "lead actress performance?"

If I were you, I would not cling to the hope that I will waste my time watching God-knows-how-many hours of testimony that is already moot, that Kavanagh will somehow find out that I watched the rerun, and that Kavanagh will subsequently step down solely because of my actions.
You don't really think that will happen, do you?

No... But we're done discussing it if you don't watch it. Because of your willful ignorance, you will never really know what happened here. That's your loss, not mine. As far as this subject goes, you're simply disqualified from having an informed opinion, by choice.

You're making judgements about the actions of thousands of women and you don't even understand the reasons for those actions.

Sad!

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: How can I discuss this story with you when you haven't even seen the "lead actress performance?"

Your words, not mine.

Scorpion wrote:: You're making judgements about the actions of thousands of women and you don't even understand the reasons for those actions.

Yes, I believe I do understand the reasons for the "actions of thousands of women" - they are based upon a performance by an actress.
If you want to give her a Golden Globe or an Academy Award based upon her performance, go ahead.
But unless there is some evidence and corroboration, I don't think her performance should give her license to destroy a man's life and reputation.
And regardless of whether or not I waste my time going back to watch it, the facts and the substance surrounding this "performance" will not change.
Feelings and emotion should not supersede truth.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: How can I discuss this story with you when you haven't even seen the "lead actress performance?"

Your words, not mine.

Yeah. Well I think that (or at least hope) you realize that I meant that metaphorically.

happy jack wrote:: Feelings and emotion should not supersede truth.

I see. So you actually believe that we have found "truth." Man, that's rich. You do realize that the FBI investigation was severely limited, right? Perhaps not, because like I said (and not metaphorically) you're willfully ignorant on this matter... you probably didn't pay any attention to the FBI investigation either...

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: So you actually believe that we have found "truth."

What I "actually believe" is the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
You know, just like those folks over in America.
What I do not believe is the principle of "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."

https://www.quoteikon.com/lavrentiy-beria-quotes.html

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So you actually believe that we have found "truth."

What I "actually believe" is the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Yeah. Me too. Which is why I wanted a full investigation of the matter.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So you actually believe that we have found "truth."

What I "actually believe" is the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Yeah. Me too. Which is why I wanted a full investigation of the matter.

Then you should probably speak to the Honorable (ahem) Senator Feinstein about that.
If she had information intimating that a rapist was about to be named to the Supreme Court, it was her responsibility to begin an investigation as soon as she had that information, not to sit on it until the optimal political moment, regardless of the wishes of the accuser.
If the matter was serious enough to be investigated at all, then it was serious enough to be investigated immediately.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So you actually believe that we have found "truth."

What I "actually believe" is the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Yeah. Me too. Which is why I wanted a full investigation of the matter.

Then you should probably speak to the Honorable (ahem) Senator Feinstein about that.
If she had information intimating that a rapist was about to be named to the Supreme Court, it was her responsibility to begin an investigation as soon as she had that information, not to sit on it until the optimal political moment, regardless of the wishes of the accuser.
If the matter was serious enough to be investigated at all, then it was serious enough to be investigated immediately.

Jack, Jack, Jack...

These questions have already been asked and answered. And not only here, but in Ms Ford's testimony before the committee. Have you read the transcript? I don't think so, because if you had, you wouldn't still be making these ludicrous statements about Feinstein.

What's there to discuss if you've already made your conclusion? ... based upon a narrative that has a huge piece missing, and that piece is..?

Right now, all you have is an uninformed opinion, based upon what's been reported by whatever news source or sources that you follow... But this is testimony...and we don't often get the opportunity to determine the unfiltered truth of a matter for ourselves. You owe it to yourself to learn the truth. Watch or read a transcript. It won't kill you.

Just Do It!

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Jack, Jack, Jack...

These questions have already been asked and answered. And not only here, but in Ms Ford's testimony before the committee.

I have seen desperate rationalizations on this forum whenever these questions have come up, but I have yet to see any actual answers.

Scorpion wrote:: Have you read the transcript? I don't think so, because if you had, you wouldn't still be making these ludicrous statements about Feinstein.

Would it be possible for you to provide the specific relevant statements from the transcript that you believe would justify Feinstein delaying an investigation for well over a month?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Jack, Jack, Jack...

These questions have already been asked and answered. And not only here, but in Ms Ford's testimony before the committee.

I have seen desperate rationalizations on this forum whenever these questions have come up, but I have yet to see any actual answers.

That's because you can't even be bothered to read Ford's opening statement.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080

Scorpion wrote:: Have you read the transcript? I don't think so, because if you had, you wouldn't still be making these ludicrous statements about Feinstein.

happy jack wrote:: Would it be possible for you to provide the specific relevant statements from the transcript that you believe would justify Feinstein delaying an investigation for well over a month?

Sure, that's possible, but it's not going to happen. I don't have endless time. Here's that link again...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080

Hint: Start with "On July 6, 2018, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information..." It's half way down the page. But you'll need to read several paragraphs, because it's all relevant to the sequence of events..

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Jack, Jack, Jack...

These questions have already been asked and answered. And not only here, but in Ms Ford's testimony before the committee.

I have seen desperate rationalizations on this forum whenever these questions have come up, but I have yet to see any actual answers.

That's because you can't even be bothered to read Ford's opening statement.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080

Scorpion wrote:: Have you read the transcript? I don't think so, because if you had, you wouldn't still be making these ludicrous statements about Feinstein.

happy jack wrote:: Would it be possible for you to provide the specific relevant statements from the transcript that you believe would justify Feinstein delaying an investigation for well over a month?

Sure, that's possible, but it's not going to happen. I don't have endless time. Here's that link again...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080

Hint: Start with "On July 6, 2018, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information..." It's half way down the page. But you'll need to read several paragraphs, because it's all relevant to the sequence of events..

Thanks for the link, but I have had that information since the day of the testimony. What I haven't had, however, was an answer, from you or anyone else, to the question I asked earlier:

happy jack wrote:: If she (Feinstein) had information intimating that a rapist was about to be named to the Supreme Court, it was her responsibility to begin an investigation as soon as she had that information, not to sit on it until the optimal political moment, regardless of the wishes of the accuser.
If the matter was serious enough to be investigated at all, then it was serious enough to be investigated immediately.

There is no reason Ford's name would have had to be released in order for another investigation into Kavanaugh to get under way. As a nominee for the Supreme Court, anyone and everyone from his past would not have been the least bit surprised if they were asked about his early years - in fact, it would probably be expected. There is no reason that a skilled investigator could not learn if such an event took place, if in fact it did, and if in fact there were witnesses to such an event. Just a hunch, but I have the feeling that Feinstein was more concerned about what such an investigation would not turn up rather than what it would turn up.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: There is no reason Ford's name would have had to be released in order for another investigation into Kavanaugh to get under way.

Yeah. There is a reason. What would the FBI investigate if they didn't know Ford's name? Are you suggesting that Feinstein should have shared Ford's identity with the commitee and asked for confidentiality? Because the committee would have to ask the President to authorize an investigation. So a whole lot of people would need to know not only Ford's identity, but what Ford shared after she was promised that it wouldn't be shared.

happy jack wrote:: As a nominee for the Supreme Court, anyone and everyone from his past would not have been the least bit surprised if they were asked about his early years - in fact, it would probably be expected.

You'd think so, but that's not the case. Currently, the FBI investigation process does not go back beyond 18 years of age.

happy jack wrote:: There is no reason that a skilled investigator could not learn if such an event took place, if in fact it did, and if in fact there were witnesses to such an event.

Yeah, but again, that's too far back to be covered by the normal FBI process.

happy jack wrote:: Just a hunch, but I have the feeling that Feinstein was more concerned about what such an investigation would not turn up rather than what it would turn up.

You're living in Fantasy Land, Jack.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: There is no reason Ford's name would have had to be released in order for another investigation into Kavanaugh to get under way.

Yeah. There is a reason. What would the FBI investigate if they didn't know Ford's name? Are you suggesting that Feinstein should have shared Ford's identity with the commitee and asked for confidentiality? Because the committee would have to ask the President to authorize an investigation. So a whole lot of people would need to know what Ford shared after she was promised that it wouldn't be shared.

happy jack wrote:: As a nominee for the Supreme Court, anyone and everyone from his past would not have been the least bit surprised if they were asked about his early years - in fact, it would probably be expected.

You'd think so, but that's not the case. Currently, the FBI investigation process does not go back beyond 18 years of age.

happy jack wrote:: There is no reason that a skilled investigator could not learn if such an event took place, if in fact it did, and if in fact there were witnesses to such an event.

Yeah, but again, that's too far back to be covered by the normal FBI process.

happy jack wrote:: Just a hunch, but I have the feeling that Feinstein was more concerned about what such an investigation would not turn up rather than what it would turn up.

You're living in Fantasy Land, Jack.

The investigation would not be a run-of-the-mill background check - it would be an investigation with a very specific purpose, so there is absolutely no reason it couldn't go back further than 18 years. And the target of the investigation would be Kavanaugh, so there would be no reason for Ford's name to be brought up. A simple sample question from the investigator: Are you aware of any instances of Brett Kavanaugh committing sexual assault?
How hard is that?
Fantasy Land, my ass.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:: There is no reason Ford's name would have had to be released in order for another investigation into Kavanaugh to get under way.

Yeah. There is a reason. What would the FBI investigate if they didn't know Ford's name? Are you suggesting that Feinstein should have shared Ford's identity with the commitee and asked for confidentiality? Because the committee would have to ask the President to authorize an investigation. So a whole lot of people would need to know what Ford shared after she was promised that it wouldn't be shared.

happy jack wrote:: As a nominee for the Supreme Court, anyone and everyone from his past would not have been the least bit surprised if they were asked about his early years - in fact, it would probably be expected.

You'd think so, but that's not the case. Currently, the FBI investigation process does not go back beyond 18 years of age.

happy jack wrote:: There is no reason that a skilled investigator could not learn if such an event took place, if in fact it did, and if in fact there were witnesses to such an event.

Yeah, but again, that's too far back to be covered by the normal FBI process.

happy jack wrote:: Just a hunch, but I have the feeling that Feinstein was more concerned about what such an investigation would not turn up rather than what it would turn up.

You're living in Fantasy Land, Jack.

The investigation would not be a run-of-the-mill background check - it would be an investigation with a very specific purpose, so there is absolutely no reason it couldn't go back further than 18 years. And the target of the investigation would be Kavanaugh, so there would be no reason for Ford's name to be brought up. A simple sample question from the investigator: Are you aware of any instances of Brett Kavanaugh committing sexual assault?
How hard is that?
Fantasy Land, my ass.

Based on what, exactly? An Anonymous tip? Who would order the FBI to open such an investigation?

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: What I "actually believe" is the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Which only applies to criminal trials. Different standards, lower standards, apply here. The perjury should have been enough to disqualify him.

happy jack wrote:: The investigation would not be a run-of-the-mill background check - it would be an investigation with a very specific purpose, so there is absolutely no reason it couldn't go back further than 18 years. And the target of the investigation would be Kavanaugh, so there would be no reason for Ford's name to be brought up. A simple sample question from the investigator: Are you aware of any instances of Brett Kavanaugh committing sexual assault?

So now you're an investigator?

Doesn't really matter, though.

FBI's Wray confirms White House limited Kavanaugh probe

Quote :: FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate on Wednesday that the White House put limits on the re-opened investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but the law enforcement chief insisted that the process used was a typical one.

. . .

Wray confirmed that background investigations are handled differently from other FBI probes and that the scope of inquiries into judicial nominees is dictated by the White House. However, he declined to discuss any specifics about what the White House decided should or should not be examined during the brief follow-up investigation conducted following the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh.

There's only one reason to do that, and it isn't "the truth."

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Based on what, exactly? An Anonymous tip?

Based on Ford's letter to Feinstein.
What the hell have we been talking about?

Scorpion wrote:: Who would order the FBI to open such an investigation?

Presumably, the same entity that opened the previous 7 billion investigations into Kavanaugh's background.

» Women in combat
» Republicans Don't Like Their Leaders
» Republicans Voted Against TSA Funding
» Republicans...Then and Now
» Republicans vs. Making BP pay