1. The KillerFrogs

FBI and Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegations

Discussion in 'Killingsworth Court, Formerly The General Forum' started by gohornedfrogs, Sep 18, 2018.

  1. So 10 of the nations elected “lawmakers”, including Diane Feinstein and Chuck Grassley, sent a letter to the FBI asking them to investigate the Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations, but none of these “lawmakers” knew that sexual assault is not a Federal crime and they have no jurisdiction over it? Do any of these people who are supposed to be “lawmakers” even know the difference between federal crimes and state crimes?

    It’s no wonder this country is such a mess.
  2. That's damn scary. Why am I not surprised?
    sketchy and Leap Frog like this.
  3. Whole thing is political theater. Dems are mad at the BS that the Republicans pulled on Garland, and are trying to respond in kind with this sort of Hail Mary attempt to delay the vote until after the mid-terms. Nobody has a consistent ideology, they're going to take the position that is most politically expedient for them in this situation.
    gohornedfrogs likes this.
  4. We are living in a time where an accusation is as good as a conviction. A letter sent to a senator about a supposed incident 36 years ago can ruin a person's life and family. Dems are desperate and are doing some desperate things. God bless America.
  5. The current climate is not a level playing field. If something "bad" happened, and it was a long time ago, how do you have a judgement if it was true? The accusation alone is terribly damaging to any public figure.

    Leap is right. This PC first attitude is dangerous, and any civility in DC has now died. I never was a fan of the vast majority of politicians, now even less.

    BTW - Beat the hell out of UT!
  6. I agree with most of this. However, the Republicans didn’t obstruct the Elena Kagan confirmation from happening right before mid-term elections in 2010. If Democrats had any intention of playing fairly, they would remember that.

    But this isn’t about fairness or doing what is right...it’s about winning at all costs.
    sketchy likes this.
  7. True, but I think the view is "everything changed" when the Republicans took the largely unprecedented step to block Garland. Before that, whether it was Kagan in mid-term 2010 or Kennedy in 1988, when push came to shove we would nominate and confirm justices (with the usual political posturing, of course). It's a little different to compare Garland to Kavanaugh, since it was a Republican majority that would have needed to confirm Garland anyway, but the refusal to even hold hearings / votes was, let's be real, pretty dirty. It was a gamble that worked out for them though, and now everyone is taking a gloves-off approach to this kind of thing.

    Agreed with this.
  8. My personal opinion is that the Democrats have no right to “avenge” the Garland delay because, after all, they are the ones, through Biden in 1992, who laid the framework for exactly what happened to Garland. They simply can’t have it both ways, so to that end, this whole episode is a sickening display of hyper-partisan filth.

    The Democrats are gambling big here. The only thing that can stop a confirmation is impeachment from a major Mueller investigation revelation in the next 6-8 weeks. Even if they delay (or get Kavanaugh tossed), there’s a lot of time before the new wave of Democrats actually take office after the November elections. Instead of Kavanaugh, they might piss off Trump and get somebody waaaay further right — and they won’t be able to stop it.

    This is a bad strategy.
  9. I know the Garland narrative is popular now, but honestly at the time Obama and dems didn’t put up much of a stink. I was surprised they didn’t, but they didn’t. Now that spin serves a purpose, but it’s concocted.
  10. Well that's just not true at all. They couldn't really do much since the Republicans had the numbers in the Senate to prevent a hearing but yeah, both the President and Democrats in congress (plus the Democractic candidates) were pretty vocal in their displeasure. There was even talk that since the Senate refused to advise and consent, they had abdicated that responsibility and the President could have theoretically appoint without confirmation. Imagine THAT stink!
  11. Like I said, I just didn’t recall much of a fight. Especially from the White House. And you see, the Constitution is not a theory. It’s the law, but it can be broken. Sometimes without consequences.
  12. Obama slams Senate GOP for blocking Garland nomination as Supreme Court begins new term - October 4th, 2016
    Obama's comments on Supreme Court nominee in the context of immigration plan - June 23rd, 2016
    Transcript from Fox News Sunday, where Obama says he wants Garland to have a hearing, even if Republicans vote against him - April 10th, 2016
    Weekly address: It's time for the Senate to do its Job - April 30th, 2016

    The entire reason we have judges in the first place is to determine the interpretation of that law, right? What one legal expert thinks is "the law" differs from another, and that's without even factoring in the partisanship. I tend to agree with you that it would be a pretty big leap and an abuse, but that proposal was out there.
  13. Say you are an investigator, and you are tasked to investigate a 36 year old claim that a drunk 17 year old tried to forcibly remove the shirt of a 15 year old at a high school party. The accuser doesn't remember the location or the date, but identifies the only other person present, who says he has no recollection of the event.

    How do you investigate that? Serious question.
    gohornedfrogs, sketchy and Leap Frog like this.
  14. Hope the "victim" shows up for the hearing-- it ought to be very interesting.
    Politics is really stinking lately, and some of the Repubs are pulling against Trump-- still mad he is Prez.
    If the Dems get back in power, all bets are off-- socialism, open borders, higher taxes and more regulation.
    Can you say San Francisco and that liberal mess-- you need look no further.
    sketchy likes this.
  15. Judges, including the Supreme, are seated to assess disputes or laws in relation to the constitution. When judges interpret instead of follow the constitution they become activists. Activism has become the rule instead of the exception, sadly. The current Supreme Court dispute is about a judge whom is purported to lean toward strict constitutionalism. (Words have meaning and simple words have narrow meanings) (the constitution’s wordings are pretty simplistic) America’s left repeatedly looses in the debate of ideas and at the ballot box. An unelected, unaccountable activist court is their remedy. The court is no longer a check and balance, it is the final authority. 9 people. 9.
  16. If the woman truly is a victim, then Feinstein sitting on the information for months is literally the worst thing she could have done. Now, her plight had been politicized and few believe her. Which is shameful, if her story is true.

    But then again, the story itself doesn't full check out either. It could have led to rape...or it could not have. I mean, that's about as open-ended as you can get.
    sketchy likes this.
  17. Feinstein and her cronies in the senate don’t give two [ Cumbie’s red zone playcalling ]s about this woman or what happened to her. They betrayed her by leaking the story and her name to the press after promising her anonymity. They’ve put her in a terrible position now, and quite frankly, they’ve used her to bastardize the entire nomination process.
  18. In case anyone is wondering if the Democrats are doing anything other than a "win-at-all-costs" blitz to disrupt the Supreme Court nomination, consider this. Debra Katz, the attorney representing Ford, had dismissive remarks back when Paula Jones made accusations of "solicitation" against a Democrat, Bill Clinton:

    “Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak,” Katz said on CNN’s “Talkback Live” in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones’ claims against Clinton, according to a show transcript. “She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.”

    “Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim,” Katz said in April 1998, according to a transcript of CBS Evening News.

    Then there's this absurd pretzel logic when another Democrat, Al Franken, was accused of sexual harrassment a couple of years ago: "Context is relevant,” Katz said of Franken, who was a comedian before his election to the Senate. “He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer.”

    He was, indeed, a Senator at the time of the incident.

    But hey...Kavanaugh wasn't a Supreme Court nominee when he was 17!

    This attorney is not the least bit interested in women's rights or the legal process. She's a political activist masquerading as an attorney who carefully picks and chooses which side of a women's rights debate to be on based on how it will benefit Democrats. It's a tragedy that she has railroaded Christine Blasey Ford into this deceitful charade.
    Leap Frog and sketchy like this.
  19. Politics 101: Everyone is a hypocrite. Their tune will change the second it is convenient for them to do so.
  20. I agree, and I don’t think either side is more guilty than the other. I think it’s important, though, to point out when they are being deceitful to achieve political ends.

    Technically, a Supreme Court nominees approval shouldn’t even be political. It should be about whether or not the person is qualified to be on the highest court. They either are, or they aren’t. We’ve allowed the politicians to convince us that it’s okay to legislate from the bench, so we must put people there who will legislate the way WE want.

Share This Page