Kavanaugh Confirmation

#1,827
#1,827
Grand Vol said:
I'll disagree. I think anyone going to the SCOTUS needs to be as thoroughly vetted as possible. Yes, it was an 11th hour political stunt. Yes, it was to delay the inevitable. Yes, DiFi sunk herself lower than ever before.
Click to expand...

I'm with Hog in the sense that this tactic should be looked back on as something that failed as much as much with style as substance. I'd like for 11th hour obviously partisan tactics like this to be referenced as trying to "Kavanaugh someone" and that attempting to do so be viewed with derision. Whatever the substance anything that discourages this approach in the future I see as a good thing.
 
#1,829
#1,829
SLICKYINC said:
It's all over the place at this point. Now DiFI wants 12 witnesses interviewed and Collins wants the lawyers to question each others client, who knows.
Click to expand...

Wait what? Does she want the lawyers to then testify? Would those lawyers then brief the committee and how on earth would that work?
 
#1,831
#1,831
So looks like she took the polygraph in early August well prior to this becoming public. Sure looks like the anonymity thing was a ploy to excuse dropping this at the last minute. If you didn't think (and specifically requested) it would go public why do the polygraph? Why not wait until it was necessary? Seems like some strategizing was done to maximize the impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, red butler, 0nelilreb and 5 others
#1,832
#1,832
volinbham said:
So looks like she took the polygraph in August prior to this becoming public. Sure looks like the anonymity thing was a ploy to excuse dropping this at the last minute. If you didn't think (and specifically requested) it would go public why do the polygraph? Why not wait until it was necessary? Seems like some strategizing was done to maximize the impact.
Click to expand...
Yep and who administered the Polygraph? DiFi?
 
#1,835
#1,835
EXCLUSIVE: SOROS-BACKED ACTIVISTS SLIP CASH TO ANTI-KAVANAUGH PROTESTERS BEFORE ARRESTS

Left-wing groups funded by George Soros and other major Democratic donors hand out cash to protesters arrested for disrupting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, the activists revealed Monday night.

A coalition of activist organizations including Women’s March, the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and Housing Works have scheduled the near-constant disruptions at the Kavanaugh hearings as part of an organized effort to derail the confirmation process in a series of meetings since he was first nominated.

The cash from the donor-funded groups goes toward the protesters’ post-and-forfeitpayments — a small cash sum paid to resolve low-level misdemeanor crimes and avoid jail time.

Those are just some of the details representatives from the three groups revealed in a Monday night conference call planning their next two anti-Kavanaugh protests, one on Thursday and one next Monday.

The Daily Caller News Foundation received a tip with the dial-in code for Monday’s conference call and was present on the call in its entirety. One reporter, who asked questions, revealed his name during the introductions portion of the meeting.

Protesters only need a government-issued ID and “your cash for the post-and-forfeit,” CPD national field organizer Darius Gordon said on the call.

The left-wing organizations would provide cash for the post-and-forfeits to protesters who didn’t show up with their own money, Gordon and another organizer, Housing Works national advocacy coordinator Paul Davis, both said on Monday’s call.

“If you do not have access to your cash we will certainly be able to arrange to get it to you before the action,” Davis said, noting that they had done so at previous anti-Kavanaugh protests.

EXCLUSIVE: Soros-Backed Activists Slip Cash To Anti-Kavanaugh Protesters Before Arrests

​
 
#1,836
#1,836
#1,837
#1,837
stg091818dAPR20180918034508.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, 82_VOL_83, AirVol and 2 others
#1,838
#1,838
Interesting (I'm being sarcastic) take

Should we trust Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh or accuser Christine Blasey Ford?

The Senate and the public need a fuller picture. It might well turn out to be an incomplete, inconclusive picture, with credible arguments on both sides. If that’s the case, the tie should go to Ford. Men (like Al Franken) have been drummed out of jobs for less, and women (like Anita Hill) have been ignored for long enough.

This is completely at odds with the presumption of innocence and sure sounds like punishing one for the sins of others. In the bio you'll see that the author is from the left side of the aisle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and tennvols77
#1,839
#1,839
hndog609 said:
I'm with Hog in the sense that this tactic should be looked back on as something that failed as much as much with style as substance. I'd like for 11th hour obviously partisan tactics like this to be referenced as trying to "Kavanaugh someone" and that attempting to do so be viewed with derision. Whatever the substance anything that discourages this approach in the future I see as a good thing.
Click to expand...

She may or may not deserve the scrutiny. If she initially knew that Ford wasn't willing to identify herself, she may not have wanted this accusation to see the light of day. If there were no legal recourse or she would have to say "I can't tell you who but.. I have this information.. and", what sense would it make to bring up an allegation of a nameless person?

The question is, did she discuss it with other Judiciary members and someone let the cat out of the bag? Suddenly she has to weigh the political backlash of doing nothing. So, forward it to the FBI as essentially a nameless accuser, and there, she did something.

Investigative journalists track Ford down and she decides to come out of the shadows. Now there is a person attached to the accusation. Hands are forced and Feinstein, again, is faced with backlash for not bringing it up.

Maybe I've missed something obvious here.
 
#1,840
#1,840
Stew Cook said:
She may or may not deserve the scrutiny. If she initially knew that Ford wasn't willing to identify herself, she may not have wanted this accusation to see the light of day. If there were no legal recourse or she would have to say "I can't tell you who but.. I have this information.. and", what sense would it make to bring up an allegation of a nameless person?

The question is, did she discuss it with other Judiciary members and someone let the cat out of the bag? Suddenly she has to weigh the political backlash of doing nothing. So, forward it to the FBI as essentially a nameless accuser, and there, she did something.

Investigative journalists track Ford down and she decides to come out of the shadows. Now there is a person attached to the accusation. Hands are forced and Feinstein, again, is faced with backlash for not bringing it up.

Maybe I've missed something obvious here.
Click to expand...

Ford took the polygraph shortly after she sent the letter to Feinstein. Sure seems like she thought there was a decent chance it would not only come out but that she (Ford) would not be anonymous. This certainly smells like a strategic choice to withhold this so that K. and the R's could not refute this claim and it was the last second hail mary delay tactic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, Franklin Pierce and Obsessed
#1,841
#1,841
volinbham said:
Ford took the polygraph shortly after she sent the letter to Feinstein. Sure seems like she thought there was a decent chance it would not only come out but that she (Ford) would not be anonymous. This certainly smells like a strategic choice to withhold this so that K. and the R's could not refute this claim and it was the last second hail mary delay tactic.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree it smells fishy, but if Ford wasn't committed to come forward, it would have smelled just as fishy if Feinstein brought up an accusation of a facelss accuser.
 
#1,842
#1,842
volinbham said:
Ford took the polygraph shortly after she sent the letter to Feinstein. Sure seems like she thought there was a decent chance it would not only come out but that she (Ford) would not be anonymous. This certainly smells like a strategic choice to withhold this so that K. and the R's could not refute this claim and it was the last second hail mary delay tactic.
Click to expand...
Blindsided. Call a foul but it still might knock him out of the game. Dirty politics suck but by not giving Garland a vote for 14 months was ridiculous and a new low.
 
#1,843
#1,843
I'll add that the release of this seems well orchestrated. The narrative was carefully told - the anonymity request, the internal struggle of DiFi, the refusal to tell anyone (back to the anonymity) but then a change of heart to send this to law enforcement so they could investigate (which we now know they did not intend since they redacted the name). Then the leaks - all from Dems on the committee and staff. Coordinated, consistent in message. "Something happened when he was in high school". Get the interest out. Then more leaking. It was a prank. Then Dem staffers/sources talk to Farrow - still no one other than the Dems have seen the letter. The accusations are more serious now. Then the accuser has decided to come forward and oh by the way she's armed with a polygraph and therapist notes.

Hard to believe this was all a random, unplanned set of occurrences rather than an orchestrated roll out of a last minute bombshell to stop the confirmation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, NurseGoodVol, ENGRVOL and 5 others
#1,844
#1,844
Stew Cook said:
I won't disagree it smells fishy, but if Ford wasn't committed to come forward, it would have smelled just as fishy if Feinstein brought up an accusation of a facelss accuser.
Click to expand...

As I just laid out - I think both were part of the larger reveal strategy.
 
#1,846
#1,846
volinbham said:
As I just laid out - I think both were part of the larger reveal strategy.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. It's just that I'm able to see more than one possibility. The prevalent theory hear is Feinstein and Ford cahoots. I only offer the alternative as a plausible theory.
 
#1,848
#1,848
So I just read the letter and DiFi's story doesn't hold up. Some relevant parts:

"I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak."

"I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED"

No where in the letter does it say that she wishes to remain anonymous (just confidential until she and DiFi speak).

Would be interesting to put DiFi on the stand to see exactly what she discussed with Ford between this time and sending this to the FBI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Franklin Pierce
#1,850
#1,850
Mick said:
No, they are actually striving to do the same thing with Trump's pick. Control the Senate and not bring it up for a vote. They have some work to do to reach that point.
Click to expand...

They (Rs with MG) did it within the bounds of Senate rules and procedures. They didn't attack MGs character to destroy his viability. It was more severe form of judicial nomination delay that the Senate has practiced for years.

The tactics matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Franklin Pierce, T-TownVol and 2 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top