Kavanaugh Confirmation

#2,678
#2,678
volinbham said:
What's funny is she's shown absolutely no outrage that they got out of her control, no effort to find out how it got out of her control and when asked about it she just says she was honoring the request for anonymity and then it was mysteriously in the press. She's leaving out critical steps (since reporters claimed sources were Dems and Dem staff members) and acting as if this is just something that happened.

She could eliminated doubts about her own role but doing some of the above but that muddies the narrative.
Click to expand...

Weve gone a few rounds on this. I don't necessarily disagree, as I've said. Things escalated, I just don't think it was a pre-determined eventuality.
 
#2,681
#2,681
Stew Cook said:
Weve gone a few rounds on this. I don't necessarily disagree, as I've said. Things escalated, I just don't think it was a pre-determined eventuality.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that she could eliminate some doubts if she showed even the slightest interest or concern in how this went public. She won't say a word about it for some reason. Honestly, the only thing we have to go on about the "anonymity" request is DiFi claiming it and the lawyer claiming it. The letter that was released didn't make that demand - it only said keep this confidential until we talk (Ford and DiFi). Feinstein won't even say if the talked or when they talked if they did. Why such opaqueness now that anonymity is no longer relevant?
 
#2,683
#2,683
volinbham said:
I'm just saying that she could eliminate some doubts if she showed even the slightest interest or concern in how this went public. She won't say a word about it for some reason. Honestly, the only thing we have to go on about the "anonymity" request is DiFi claiming it and the lawyer claiming it. The letter that was released didn't make that demand - it only said keep this confidential until we talk (Ford and DiFi). Feinstein won't even say if the talked or when they talked if they did. Why such opaqueness now that anonymity is no longer relevant?
Click to expand...

I can't tell you why, it would only be speculation and I've done enough of that for now.
 
#2,685
#2,685
hog88 said:
Or file a police report in the jurisdiction where it happened. I think there’s not a SOL for sexual assault in MD.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This “FBl” thing is a ruse. You can’t make these accusations and be unwilling to go to the local police who have jurisdiction. Hell, file a civil case for all I care. Either pursue it through legal means or STFU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and AirVol
#2,686
#2,686
The Democratic ploy.

its-a-bold-strategy-cotton-lets-see-if-it-pays-off-for-em.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol and volinbham
#2,687
#2,687
Roustabout said:
Exactly. This “FBl” thing is a ruse. You can’t make these accusations and be unwilling to go to the local police who have jurisdiction. Hell, file a civil case for all I care. Either pursue it through legal means or STFU.
Click to expand...

The FBI route is much milder. If an FBI background check style investigation is what is really being requested then the natural starting point is an interview with the accuser. In order for them to proceed they need to hear her story from her (not from her lawyer, not from a letter she wrote) and be able to ask her questions so they would even know how to support.

There is no indication she has any interest in being interviewed by the FBI.
 
#2,690
#2,690
Mick said:
Does anyone know if the FBI is investigating the claim?
Click to expand...

When they got the original letter they said "thanks, we'll put it in the file". That letter redacted the accusers name. As far as I can tell that's all that's been done so far.

It doesn't mean their not interested but the natural starting point would be to talk to her. There is no indication she is interested in or willing to talk to the FBI.
 
#2,693
#2,693
Mick said:
Can they comment if they did? Comey got ripped to shreds for doing just that.
Click to expand...
I see what your saying but I would think very different situations. They aren’t going to criminaly investigate, bc as correctly pointed out in the article, it’s not their jurisdiction. No accusation of a federal crime. Also pointed out in the article, it wouldn’t be the first time, a candidate for the SC has had their back ground reopened.
 
#2,694
#2,694
Mick said:
Can they comment if they did? Comey got ripped to shreds for doing just that.
Click to expand...

It's not a criminal investigation so I'm guessing the rules are different. I do believe they've publicly said they did as I recounted above - put the letter in the file.

To reopen I believe they must be directed to do so by POTUS.
 
#2,695
#2,695
volfanhill said:
I see what your saying but I would think very different situations. They aren’t going to criminaly investigate, bc as correctly pointed out in the article, it’s not their jurisdiction. No accusation of a federal crime. Also pointed out in the article, it wouldn’t be the first time, a candidate for the SC has had their back ground reopened.
Click to expand...

The timeline is different though for Hill as the Vox article links a CNN timeline article that shows that Hill testified to the committee about the allegations which then prompted an offer to her to open an FBI investigation if she wished.

So she testified to the committee. This allegation came up in testimony. They halted, asked if she wanted the FBI to investigate and she acknowledged and they proceeded. Afterwards they held additional hearings between her and Thomas to dig into to it.

So the precedent from Anita Hill is testify to the committee, THEN do FBI investigation if merited, then further hearings if necessary.
 
#2,696
#2,696
volinbham said:
The timeline is different though for Hill as the Vox article links a CNN timeline article that shows that Hill testified to the committee about the allegations which then prompted an offer to her to open an FBI investigation if she wished.
Click to expand...
Correct but they weren’t doing a criminal investigation. At least that’s how I read it. But for now the DOJ has said there will not be a criminal investigation opened.
 
#2,697
#2,697
Their job is to provide congress background information about Kavanaugh, correct? That information has to be factual, correct? Even though it's not a criminal investigation it still needs to be verified in order for them to put it in the "file".
 
#2,698
#2,698
More on the Anita Hill "precedent"

September 10, 1991: Thomas' initial hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee began.


September 12, 1991: According to then-Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Judiciary Committee, Hill first told the committee of the allegations on this day, as reported in the Times. Biden said she insisted her name not be used and Thomas not be told of the accusations, effectively tying the committee's hands.
September 20, 1991: After Hill spoke with the committee about her allegations "an FBI investigation was suggested" to her, according to comments she made at a news conference early the next month, published in the Times. "I spoke with the Judiciary Committee about it early in September, and through a number of discussions, it was not until the 20th of September that an F.B.I. investigation was suggested to me,"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-allegations-timeline/index.html

The precedent. Testify to the committee, FBI investigation if merited, further hearings if merited.
 
#2,700
#2,700
volfanhill said:
Correct but they weren’t doing a criminal investigation. At least that’s how I read it. But for now the DOJ has said there will not be a criminal investigation opened.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree - was not criminal investigation. Just pointing that unlike the current demand, Hill DID testify to the committee prior to any FBI involvement.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top