The Kavanaugh Confirmation Charade Thread

[SaysWho?]

Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying

 

Quote

The woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault says the FBI should investigate the incident before senators hold a hearing on the allegations.

 

In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and obtained by CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys argue that "a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."

The letter from Ford's lawyers notes that despite receiving a "stunning amount of support from her community," Ford has also "been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats" and has been forced to leave her home.

 

[Chairslinger]

43 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

 

 

Eventually they had to ask Shine to leave the room because he was slowing everything down by constantly responding to Kavanaugh's answers with, "Bitches, amirite?" and requesting high fives.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

49 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

I think they realize that what's said is less important than how it looks to the two female Republican senators

[Firewithin]

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

13 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying

That's borderline ridiculous and does nothing for her credibility.

[Firewithin]

Well there it is...

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

We're done here.  Just hold the vote to confirm and let's move on.

[Guest]

Yeah, this more than anything gives the most easy accusation of trying to delay Trump’s ability to get a justice confirmed at all in the hopes the Dems wrestle back control of the senate. The GOP barely cared in the first place, they will feel completely emboldened to just move on.

[Firewithin]

Wouldn't be surprised if they take back the delay on the vote

[marioandsonic]

10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

We're done here.  Just hold the vote to confirm and let's move on.

Agreed.

 

We can't stop the downfall of America, so let's just get it over with as quickly as possible.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Firewithin said:

Wouldn't be surprised if they take back the delay on the vote

Nah - give Kavanaugh the opportunity to testify against an empty chair and he immediately wins the optics battle so there will be no reason to delay his confirmation one moment longer.

[ByWatterson]

5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Nah - give Kavanaugh the opportunity to testify against an empty chair and he immediately wins the optics battle so there will be no reason to delay his confirmation one moment longer.

 

Correct. I'm inclined to believe Ford, but this strikes me as an abdication of responsibility. You start this in WaPo, you have to finish it in the Senate - now. 

 

Also, FBI? With what jurisdiction? Are there federal attempted rape laws I don't know about?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, ByWatterson said:

 

Correct. I'm inclined to believe Ford, but this strikes me as an abdication of responsibility. You start this in WaPo, you have to finish it in the Senate - now. 

 

Also, FBI? With what jurisdiction? Are there federal attempted rape laws I don't know about?

This is unquestionably an abdication of responsibility on Ford's part - that is a dead accurate characterization.

 

I have no bloody idea what possible jurisdiction the FBI or any other Federal law enforcement agency would have in this matter which is why the suggestion is ludicrous to the point of being laughable.

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

This is unquestionably an abdication of responsibility on Ford's part - that is a dead accurate characterization.

 

I have no bloody idea what possible jurisdiction the FBI or any other Federal law enforcement agency would have in this matter which is why the suggestion is ludicrous to the point of being laughable.

 

I mean, if Congress tells them to do it then isn't that all the jurisdiction they need? The better question seems to be why, if she (not unreasonably) doesn't trust this Congress to handle the matter properly, she thinks this Congress would hand it over to someone who would.

[Jason]

And basically right on cue:

 

 

[Jason]

 

[ByWatterson]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

I mean, if Congress tells them to do it then isn't that all the jurisdiction they need? The better question seems to be why, if she (not unreasonably) doesn't trust this Congress to handle the matter properly, she thinks this Congress would hand it over to someone who would.

 

But Congress can't tell FBI to do anything. Pretty sure POTUS has sole authority here to, at best, order a further background check. 

 

And he won't. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I mean, if Congress tells them to do it then isn't that all the jurisdiction they need? The better question seems to be why, if she (not unreasonably) doesn't trust this Congress to handle the matter properly, she thinks this Congress would hand it over to someone who would.

Congress has oversight of Executive branch agencies, but has no power to compel an investigation of this sort at all.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, ByWatterson said:

But Congress can't tell FBI to do anything. Pretty sure POTUS has sole authority here to, at best, order a further background check. 

 

I think you're probably right, but presumably Congress creating some kind of special investigator/counsel/whatever role and tapping someone from the FBI to do it would have been close enough to make her happy.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

I think you're probably right, but presumably Congress creating some kind of special investigator/counsel/whatever role and tapping someone from the FBI to do it would have been close enough to make her happy.

You mean the Independent Counsel statute that lapsed into expiration decades ago and has never been renewed since?

[Jason]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

You mean the Independent Counsel statute that lapsed into expiration decades ago and has never been renewed since?

 

Go back and re-read my other post:

 

10 minutes ago, Jason said:

I mean, if Congress tells them to do it then isn't that all the jurisdiction they need? The better question seems to be why, if she (not unreasonably) doesn't trust this Congress to handle the matter properly, she thinks this Congress would hand it over to someone who would. 

 

[Jason]

Wait.

 

 

@ByWatterson @SFLUFAN

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

Wait.

 

 

@ByWatterson @SFLUFAN

Wasn't Thomas a federal judge at that point when the Anita Hill thing happened?

[Guest]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Wasn't Thomas a federal judge at that point when the Anita Hill thing happened?

 

He was a federal government employee of some sort, maybe at EEOC?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I need to see evidence that Congress directly ordered that investigation independent of the Executive authorizing it.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Wasn't Thomas a federal judge at that point when the Anita Hill thing happened?

 

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

He was a federal government employee of some sort, maybe at EEOC?

Which makes it alleged misconduct by a Federal employee which is well within the purview of the FBI to investigate.

 

An alleged attempted rape 30+ years ago by a rich, white, morally reprehensible, private school degenerate is decidedly not within the purview of the FBI to investigate.  Unfortunately.

 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

 

Which makes it alleged misconduct by a Federal employee which is well within the purview of the FBI to investigate.

 

An alleged attempted rape 30+ years ago by a rich, white, morally reprehensible, private school degenerate is decidedly not within the purview of the FBI to investigate.  Unfortunately.

 

 

I can't remember which page I would have posted this on at this point but I'm pretty sure I saw posted something about there being federal judicial clerks or something like that saying they have stories about working for Kavanaugh. So if that was true hopefully one of them comes forward in light of Ford dropping the ball.

[Jason]

I'm having trouble find verification of this part but apparently Cernovich doxxed her:

 

 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

We're done here.  Just hold the vote to confirm and let's move on.

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

I'm having trouble find verification of this part but apparently Cernovich doxxed her:

 

 

Deplorables gonna deplorable.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Is there a screenshot missing where he does the encouraging?

[RedSoxFan9]

He knows his followers only need a gentle nudge from him

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Is there a screenshot missing where he does the encouraging?

 

It's pretty obvious what he was doing in the first two tweets.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

It's pretty obvious what he was doing in the first two tweets.

Maybe I’m reading the shots wrong, but what I see is:

 

Cernovich says the woman is scrubbing her social media accounts.

 

He later replies to that tweet after she came forward saying he didn’t name names because that “would have be mean” (seems facetiously though) and complaining that she is an activist.

 

Somebody whines that not naming names was a disservice since it gave her time to scrub her social media.

 

Cernovich says he would have been banned for doxxing.

 

Somebody else suggest a burner account.

 

A burner account replies to another Cernovich tweet with Ford’s personal info.

 

I don’t see where the gentle nudge is. That claim would make more sense if he were complaining about not being able to name names before she went public. What you seeing that makes this encouragement so obvious?