Kavanaugh Confirmation

#876
#876
volinbham said:
From what Feinstein has said you'd think she'd at least be implying some really bad behavior is why it was forwarded. As it is, all she's said is the person of interest requested anonymity and therefore she's passed it along rather than discussing anything about it.
Click to expand...
Nice out for her.

Involved, but not really.
 
#878
#878
lawgator1 said:
Sure. Then again

1) this process has been dramatically hurried to beat the clock on the mid-terms.

and,

2) If I am reading it correctly the information was provided to Feinstein in the last 48 hours and she has since relayed it to the FBI. If you want to question the timing, seems like that should be directed to the person who gave it to her a couple of days ago, not Feinstein.

Just so we are clear, I assign no significance to this at all, yet. My assumption is that this has something to do with the delay in his vote. Maybe not. Either way, if there is something there I am sure we will hear about it. If not, it will fade into oblivion in short order.
Click to expand...

1) what's the average time on the things? I think the answer, but I'm wondering if you'll admit it.

2) see my original point. The timing is very suspicious. For all the things I disagree with Feinstein about, I doubt she sat on anything.
 
#880
#880
Dianne Feinstein’s announcement about Brett Kavanaugh and the FBI smells like a political stunt

Either Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has the goods on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, or she has gone full Harry Reid.

My money is on the latter.

The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a tortuously cryptic statement Thursday claiming her office has referred a Kavanaugh-related matter to federal law enforcement officials.

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” the statement said.

It added, “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

Feinstein reportedly learned of the Kavanaugh allegations from a letter sent to her by Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, D-Calif. Feinstein also reportedly first learned of the allegations in July. If true, it means she has been sitting on this supposedly very serious matter for the better part of seven weeks.

Thursday’s statement comes just hours after the Intercept published a report, titled “ Dianne Feinstein Withholding Brett Kavanaugh Document From Fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats.” That story claimed the Feinstein letter may or may not describe “an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school.”

The New York Times and the Washington Post reported Thursday that the letter alleges an episode of “sexual misconduct” between Kavanaugh and a woman when they were both in high school.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said separately in remarks to BuzzFeed News that, “This matter has been referred to the FBI for investigation.”

BuzzFeed News said it contacted “the woman believed to be the subject of the letter.” The anonymous woman declined to comment. BuzzFeed News also contacted noted #MeToo attorney Debra Katz, who is believed to be representing the woman believed to be the subject of the letter (isn’t this fun?). Katz declined to comment, saying, “There’s nothing to say.”

Dianne Feinstein’s announcement about Brett Kavanaugh and the FBI smells like a political stunt
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and BigOrangeD
#881
#881
On the Supreme Court, Democrats finally get their just deserts 31 years later

Are you happy now, Teddy Kennedy? Are you happy, Joe Biden? Are you happy now, Harry Reid? It’s due to the things that you did and said that Donald J. Trump is now naming his second Supreme Court justice in under two years in office. It is your fault that the once courtly process of Supreme Court appointments turned into the blood-and-thunder-eye-gouging drama that we hate and we live through today.

It was 31 years ago, in 1987, that Edward M. Kennedy burst on the floor of the Senate to tell us all that with Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, “women would be forced Into back-alley abortions,” blacks would eat at segregated lunch counters, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the freedom of millions would hang by a thread.

Before it was over, liberals would raise and spend over $10 million in negative ads (quite a sum at the time) and in lobbying efforts. They would threaten black witnesses with career-ending reprisals and seize and search records of video rentals for signs of blue movies that were never found.


As Steve Hayward says, “The demagogic nature of the public campaign against him made it a watershed moment in American politics, permanently deforming the nomination process as for the judiciary, with ideological battles now extending to the lower federal courts as well.” How true this was proven in 1991, when Kennedy’s office unleashed Anita Hill upon Clarence Thomas, though with less success.

And in 1992, Biden averred that if a vacancy occurred in the Supreme Court before the presidential election, the Democratic Senate should refuse to let Republican President George H.W. Bush fill it until the election was over, so that the new president (who would be Bill Clinton) could decide.

Twenty-four years later, in 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of a heart attack, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took this advice. He refused to allow a vote on a nominee picked by an exiting Democrat. Democrats fumed, but, as they expected a President Hillary Clinton, they bided their time.

Picture their rage when Trump was elected, bringing not only himself but a procession of judges whom a Republican Senate would rush to confirm. The first pick, Neil Gorsuch, did not change the court’s balance, and Democrats would have done better to put up a fight on the second one, which would. But their anger and shock knew no bounds.

On the Supreme Court, Democrats finally get their just deserts 31 years later
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and BigOrangeD
#882
#882
Franklin Pierce said:
On the Supreme Court, Democrats finally get their just deserts 31 years later

Are you happy now, Teddy Kennedy? Are you happy, Joe Biden? Are you happy now, Harry Reid? It’s due to the things that you did and said that Donald J. Trump is now naming his second Supreme Court justice in under two years in office. It is your fault that the once courtly process of Supreme Court appointments turned into the blood-and-thunder-eye-gouging drama that we hate and we live through today.

It was 31 years ago, in 1987, that Edward M. Kennedy burst on the floor of the Senate to tell us all that with Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, “women would be forced Into back-alley abortions,” blacks would eat at segregated lunch counters, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the freedom of millions would hang by a thread.

Before it was over, liberals would raise and spend over $10 million in negative ads (quite a sum at the time) and in lobbying efforts. They would threaten black witnesses with career-ending reprisals and seize and search records of video rentals for signs of blue movies that were never found.


As Steve Hayward says, “The demagogic nature of the public campaign against him made it a watershed moment in American politics, permanently deforming the nomination process as for the judiciary, with ideological battles now extending to the lower federal courts as well.” How true this was proven in 1991, when Kennedy’s office unleashed Anita Hill upon Clarence Thomas, though with less success.

And in 1992, Biden averred that if a vacancy occurred in the Supreme Court before the presidential election, the Democratic Senate should refuse to let Republican President George H.W. Bush fill it until the election was over, so that the new president (who would be Bill Clinton) could decide.

Twenty-four years later, in 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of a heart attack, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took this advice. He refused to allow a vote on a nominee picked by an exiting Democrat. Democrats fumed, but, as they expected a President Hillary Clinton, they bided their time.

Picture their rage when Trump was elected, bringing not only himself but a procession of judges whom a Republican Senate would rush to confirm. The first pick, Neil Gorsuch, did not change the court’s balance, and Democrats would have done better to put up a fight on the second one, which would. But their anger and shock knew no bounds.

On the Supreme Court, Democrats finally get their just deserts 31 years later
Click to expand...

I bet ol' Chappaquiddick Ted is having a ball now. Not....
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#883
#883
Franklin Pierce said:
On the Supreme Court, Democrats finally get their just deserts 31 years later

Are you happy now, Teddy Kennedy? Are you happy, Joe Biden? Are you happy now, Harry Reid? It’s due to the things that you did and said that Donald J. Trump is now naming his second Supreme Court justice in under two years in office. It is your fault that the once courtly process of Supreme Court appointments turned into the blood-and-thunder-eye-gouging drama that we hate and we live through today.

It was 31 years ago, in 1987, that Edward M. Kennedy burst on the floor of the Senate to tell us all that with Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, “women would be forced Into back-alley abortions,” blacks would eat at segregated lunch counters, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the freedom of millions would hang by a thread.

Before it was over, liberals would raise and spend over $10 million in negative ads (quite a sum at the time) and in lobbying efforts. They would threaten black witnesses with career-ending reprisals and seize and search records of video rentals for signs of blue movies that were never found.


As Steve Hayward says, “The demagogic nature of the public campaign against him made it a watershed moment in American politics, permanently deforming the nomination process as for the judiciary, with ideological battles now extending to the lower federal courts as well.” How true this was proven in 1991, when Kennedy’s office unleashed Anita Hill upon Clarence Thomas, though with less success.

And in 1992, Biden averred that if a vacancy occurred in the Supreme Court before the presidential election, the Democratic Senate should refuse to let Republican President George H.W. Bush fill it until the election was over, so that the new president (who would be Bill Clinton) could decide.

Twenty-four years later, in 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died of a heart attack, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took this advice. He refused to allow a vote on a nominee picked by an exiting Democrat. Democrats fumed, but, as they expected a President Hillary Clinton, they bided their time.

Picture their rage when Trump was elected, bringing not only himself but a procession of judges whom a Republican Senate would rush to confirm. The first pick, Neil Gorsuch, did not change the court’s balance, and Democrats would have done better to put up a fight on the second one, which would. But their anger and shock knew no bounds.

On the Supreme Court, Democrats finally get their just deserts 31 years later
Click to expand...
Karma is a b!tch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#886
#886
senate_supreme_court_28110_c0-240-5744-3589_s885x516.jpg
 
#889
#889
evillawyer said:
I think if it's something like child molestation of kid substantially younger, he's done. If it's more along the lines of pushing the envelope too far with someone of roughly the same age, he'll still be confirmed.
Click to expand...

The reporting on this suggests the alleged incident took place when both parties were in high school. Child molestation highly unlikely.
 
#895
#895
From the NYT article - statements of note:

1. both parties in high school (so close in age).
2. this quote from the article about role of FBI
In addition to criminal investigations, the F.B.I. conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. The F.B.I. said in a statement on Thursday that it had received Ms. Feinstein’s referral and included it in Judge Kavanaugh’s background file. A bureau official also said that no criminal investigation had been opened related to the matter.

Including the letter in Judge Kavanaugh’s file allows the White House, and potentially other senators, to view its contents. A copy of the letter was included in an updated background file sent on Thursday to the office of Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

So one reason it goes to the FBI is they handle the background check and this letter gets added to the file. IOW, referring it to the FBI doesn't indicate it was so serious they (Dems) thought it was investigation worthy but it does allow them to imply "the FBI is looking into this so we better delay the confirmation".
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, hog88, Grand Vol and 1 other person
#896
#896
volinbham said:
From the NYT article - statements of note:

1. both parties in high school (so close in age).
2. this quote from the article about role of FBI
In addition to criminal investigations, the F.B.I. conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. The F.B.I. said in a statement on Thursday that it had received Ms. Feinstein’s referral and included it in Judge Kavanaugh’s background file. A bureau official also said that no criminal investigation had been opened related to the matter.

Including the letter in Judge Kavanaugh’s file allows the White House, and potentially other senators, to view its contents. A copy of the letter was included in an updated background file sent on Thursday to the office of Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

So one reason it goes to the FBI is they handle the background check and this letter gets added to the file. IOW, referring it to the FBI doesn't indicate it was so serious they (Dems) thought it was investigation worthy but it does allow them to imply "the FBI is looking into this so we better delay the confirmation".
Click to expand...
They also know the lying Press will go all out on it.
 
#897
#897
Grand Vol said:
1) what's the average time on the things? I think the answer, but I'm wondering if you'll admit it.

2) see my original point. The timing is very suspicious. For all the things I disagree with Feinstein about, I doubt she sat on anything.
Click to expand...

Bump for @lawgator1

Never mind. You won't answer #1, so I'll do it for you:

66 days as of today since he was nominated...

Way longer than it took to confirm Ginsburg (50 days). More than Roberts (62 days). More than the man he's replacing (Kennedy 65 days). Equal to Sotomayor (66 days). Still has a way to go with Breyer (73 days), Kagan (87 days), Alito (82 days) and Thomas (99 days).

Average time to wait (according to NBC) is 67 days (Gorsuch had this many days), we'll hit that tomorrow. You think the vote comes up?

Time spent considering Supreme Court nominees

How Long Does It Take To Confirm a Supreme Court Justice?

How Long Before the Senate Acts on Supreme Court Nominees?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#898
#898
volinbham said:
From the NYT article - statements of note:

1. both parties in high school (so close in age).
2. this quote from the article about role of FBI
In addition to criminal investigations, the F.B.I. conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. The F.B.I. said in a statement on Thursday that it had received Ms. Feinstein’s referral and included it in Judge Kavanaugh’s background file. A bureau official also said that no criminal investigation had been opened related to the matter.

Including the letter in Judge Kavanaugh’s file allows the White House, and potentially other senators, to view its contents. A copy of the letter was included in an updated background file sent on Thursday to the office of Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

So one reason it goes to the FBI is they handle the background check and this letter gets added to the file. IOW, referring it to the FBI doesn't indicate it was so serious they (Dems) thought it was investigation worthy but it does allow them to imply "the FBI is looking into this so we better delay the confirmation".
Click to expand...
try and get them to admit that. this was just raising another question.
 
#899
#899
Po
volinbham said:
From the NYT article - statements of note:

1. both parties in high school (so close in age).
2. this quote from the article about role of FBI
In addition to criminal investigations, the F.B.I. conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. The F.B.I. said in a statement on Thursday that it had received Ms. Feinstein’s referral and included it in Judge Kavanaugh’s background file. A bureau official also said that no criminal investigation had been opened related to the matter.

Including the letter in Judge Kavanaugh’s file allows the White House, and potentially other senators, to view its contents. A copy of the letter was included in an updated background file sent on Thursday to the office of Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

So one reason it goes to the FBI is they handle the background check and this letter gets added to the file. IOW, referring it to the FBI doesn't indicate it was so serious they (Dems) thought it was investigation worthy but it does allow them to imply "the FBI is looking into this so we better delay the confirmation".
Click to expand...

Seems like since the incident happened so long ago, the statutes of limitations wouldn't allow for prosecution. If the FBI couldn't charge a crime, there wouldn't be any point in performing an investigation.
 
#900
#900
Single, anonymous accuser about an incident between two teenagers 30+ years ago with no record and not being investigated by the FBI.

Wow, just wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top