Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

[One Brow]

When people accused Obama of not being a legal citizen, the majority of the country said “no, you need to show us proof of that.” Obviously this is legally a different matter, but the principle is the same.

Obama released his birth certificate. Twice.

 

[One Brow]

Throw Rueben Foster in jail. Let’s get the Duke lacrosse team there too, while we’re at it.

Who's trying to put Kavanaugh in jail?

 

[One Brow]

But...but I thought y’all didn’t want Trump to tell the FBI what to do?! I guess that’s just situational.

Yes, it is. Trump should keep his hands off the Mueller investigation, because Trump is involved in some way. OUtside of that, like it or not, the FBI works for Trump.

 

[RandyForRubio]

And the White House, as has been done before, can order the FBI to reopen their background check investigation. Learn some history.

Her friend doesn't deny it, she actually says she doesn't recall it, not surprising after 35 years, after all no one's memory is perfect. What I don't understand, is if you think Ford is making it up, why would she add a bunch of details that complicate things for her, like admitting to being drunk, placing another witness in the room. Someone who was just making **** up wouldn't do that.

“Judge, this is less directed at you than it is to my pontificating colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, so, Judge, I have not made my judgment, based upon this proceeding, because we have not heard all the evidence,” Biden continued.

“The last thing I will point out, the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period,” Biden said. “The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report [is] you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say, ‘He said, she said, and they said. Period.”

“So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not reach conclusions,” Biden said.

 

[RandyForRubio]

And the White House, as has been done before, can order the FBI to reopen their background check investigation. Learn some history.

Her friend doesn't deny it, she actually says she doesn't recall it, not surprising after 35 years, after all no one's memory is perfect. What I don't understand, is if you think Ford is making it up, why would she add a bunch of details that complicate things for her, like admitting to being drunk, placing another witness in the room. Someone who was just making **** up wouldn't do that.

Not just that she doesn’t recall the event...she said she’s never met Kavanaugh. Not in passing, not at a party, not at anybody’s house.

 

[RandyForRubio]

That Ford has described what happened to her is a fact. If you are waiting for DNA evidence, there will be none. Outside of that, what sort of facts are you waiting for?

If what Ford says happened is a fact, then is what Kavanaugh said happened a fact as well?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Kavanaugh over the past 25 years has gone through 6 FBI background checks. A 7th one will totally do the trick though.

 

[Stoked]

Kavanaugh over the past 25 years has gone through 6 FBI background checks. A 7th one will totally do the trick though.

An investigation and a back ground check are not the same thing.

 

[RandyForRubio]

An investigation and a back ground check are not the same thing.

I agree. A page or two back Zombie said an FBI background check. I’m just goin with the flow honey.

Btw, see what Joe Biden has to say on the FBI investigating a SC Justice sexual assault claim, just for a little precedence.

 

[Zombie]

Not just that she doesn’t recall the event...she said she’s never met Kavanaugh. Not in passing, not at a party, not at anybody’s house.

She said she didn't know him, and had no recollection of the party, but she believes Dr Ford nonetheless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...199c6a-be8f-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html

 

[Zombie]

So let's just say that Kavanaugh is innocent of all of the assaults he is accused of committing. What should we make of his lying about so much else regarding his past? Shouldn't we expect justices of our highest court to have unimpeachable credibility?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-is-hard-to-believe.html?

 

[Stoked]

I agree. A page or two back Zombie said an FBI background check. I’m just goin with the flow honey.

Btw, see what Joe Biden has to say on the FBI investigating a SC Justice sexual assault claim, just for a little precedence.

Oh ok.

 

[RandyForRubio]

If Feinstein thinks he lied under oath, she’d attempt to charge him with perjury, no?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Eh.

He’s gonna get confirmed. Ford won’t testify on Thursday. When Democrats get back in power we’ll go to 11 justices. Then we get to have all this fun again!

 

[Zombie]

If Feinstein thinks he lied under oath, she’d attempt to charge him with perjury, no?

It's nearly impossible to charge someone with perjury, wrt congressional testimony. It just doesn't happen. The bar for criminal perjury is much higher than simply being dishonest.

 

[Zombie]

A former FBI agent weighs in.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/25/fbi-kavanaugh-allegations-220621

Based on my experience initiating these investigations, Dr. Blasey Ford’s allegation alone is sufficient basis for the FBI to launch a supplemental investigation into Kavanaugh. The nature of the allegation is extremely serious, and it would be beneficial for senators to have an impartial fact-finder take statements under oath in a non-adversarial setting from the accuser, the accused and individuals who may have witnessed or heard about the incident. The same goes for the second allegation, from Ms. Ramirez, and especially so because it suggests a pattern of misconduct.

 

[One Brow]

If what Ford says happened is a fact, then is what Kavanaugh said happened a fact as well?

Consider the difference:
That Ford has described what happened to her is a fact.
What Ford says happened is a fact.

Let me know if you need more explanation of the difference.

 

[fishonjazz]

You are trying to EXCUSE someone in a current situation by pointing out a situation involving a retired President. I'm sorry that we don't think Bill Clinton is relevant to Kavanaugh's confirmation. But it's not. We didn't have to be up in arms in the early 90s in order to have a negative view of possible sexual assault now. The idea that we're being hypocrites is some silly ****.

This seems so obvious. I don’t get why some people (basically trump apologists) can’t understand this concept.

 

[JAZZGASM]

This seems so obvious. I don’t get why some people (basically trump apologists) can’t understand this concept.

Well, I will respond that one as someone who very much dislikes Trump, and did not vote for him: I agree with the idea that past leaders actions generally aren't relevant to current issues, other to show a consistent pattern that our politicians vote for party and not what is right or reasonable)... I do see one other big issue with Clinton. All these people on this thread saying these women should be believed and respected (which I agree with, at least in Ford/Blasey's case-the Ramirez thing seems a bit iffy IMO based on her memory, but I am not discounting it and think an investigation should be done and will reserve judgment until a full investigation is done. Either way Kavanaugh seems a bit scummy, and pushing a vote through is not right). Yet, I am guessing many of these same people going after Kavanaugh voted for Hillary not that long ago and these Republicans defending Kavanaugh were bringing up Clinton's actions during Hillary's last run (which would have put Bill back in the White House, think he has changed his ways?) the woman who not only stood by and defended her husband time and time again after harrassing, raping, and taking advantage of women, she actually belittled and threatened these women. Yet these same Democrats who say these women deserve to be believed were silent about Hillary, and her actions, (verified by some witnesses regarding threats to Gennifer Flowers, and many similar allegations from other victims, including rape victim Juanita Broaddarick. I will give these victims the benefit of the doubt. And while Hillarys threats and defense are not on the same level as Bill's actions, they are pretty deplorable). I heard some people bring these issues up during the election, but it was driven by Republicans and largely discounted by Democrats. Oh how the tables have turned. So to me, Clinton isn't just an issue from the 90's. It is a classic example of how Americans generally turn a blind eye for our political parties and find some reason to justify this crap.

I find both Hillary and Trump to be repugnant, and am still disgusted that these are the choices we were given. And the democrats put Hillary forward twice!

Sadly Kavanaugh will likely get confirmed soon, and IMO should not be on the Sup. Ct., at least without a reasonable inquiry as to the allegations.

If you can't see the hypocrisy from both parties, you are blind or living in denial.

 

[Gameface]

I don't remember **** about Republicans bringing up Hillary's defense of Bills sexual misconduct. I remember BNGHAZIIIIIIIIII and email servers and Vince Foster. Republicans were not focused on the sexual abuse angle, at all.