|
Post by megop on Sept 29, 2018 3:35:43 GMT
MSNBC interviewed a former FBI field agent to answer some questions about how this investigation will be conducted: (1) Agents will go door-to-door to interview people and also will encourage those who may know something to contact their field office (2) On scope – he said that’s like a “wild animal” because once the information flows agents do not stop, they can keep asking questions and do interviews (3) Agents will talk to Ford and all other individuals involved (4) Agents can do a lot in seven days, but depending on how much information is uncovered, the time limit could also be an inhibitor (5) On the issue of White House limits, agents are not limited; WH can try to limit but it can be considered obstruction even though this is not a criminal investigation (6) Individuals can refuse to talk to agents or can say they don't remember, etc, and they cannot be forced to talk (Add’l: Joy Reid said that reports will be shared with all 100 senators and their staff members.) 5 - forgive my ignorance but how is this not a criminal investigation? Wasn't what he did criminal? So he's guilty then? Actually, there isn't a statute of limitations so I would think that if Dr. Ford wants to report to local authorities and that prosecutor establishes enough credible evidence, Kavanaugh could still be charged. I don't know that as fact, but that is just what I've gleaned based on what I've read and viewed during yesterday's testimony.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 19:26:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 3:38:53 GMT
5 - forgive my ignorance but how is this not a criminal investigation? Wasn't what he did criminal? So he's guilty then? Actually, there isn't a statute of limitations so I would think that if Dr. Ford wants to report to local authorities and that prosecutor establishes enough credible evidence, Kavanaugh could still be charged. I don't know that as fact, but that is just what I've gleaned based on what I've read and viewed during yesterday's testimony. Sorry, I should have said, what he's accused of doing.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 29, 2018 3:43:04 GMT
MSNBC interviewed a former FBI field agent to answer some questions about how this investigation will be conducted: (1) Agents will go door-to-door to interview people and also will encourage those who may know something to contact their field office (2) On scope – he said that’s like a “wild animal” because once the information flows agents do not stop, they can keep asking questions and do interviews (3) Agents will talk to Ford and all other individuals involved (4) Agents can do a lot in seven days, but depending on how much information is uncovered, the time limit could also be an inhibitor (5) On the issue of White House limits, agents are not limited; WH can try to limit but it can be considered obstruction even though this is not a criminal investigation (6) Individuals can refuse to talk to agents or can say they don't remember, etc, and they cannot be forced to talk (Add’l: Joy Reid said that reports will be shared with all 100 senators and their staff members.) 5 - forgive my ignorance but how is this not a criminal investigation? Wasn't what he did criminal? Not at this time. There's no evidence yet that a crime has been committed. What we have right now are only allegations and there is no criminal investigation until there's probable cause. This investigation ordered by Trump is different - it is to reopen Kavanaugh's background check to investigate the allegations.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Sept 29, 2018 3:43:34 GMT
I read somewhere this evening that a referral was made to the Montgomery County police today, requesting an investigation.
I take great offense to the notion that Dr. Ford is a political pawn of the Democrats. She came forward when she did for reasons she has now explained under oath. Her timing and her reasons were not political. Senator Feinstein respected her desire to remain confidential until that letter was leaked. The original reporter has confirmed the leak did not come from Feinstein’s office. When you allege that this is all political machinations, you rob Dr. Ford of her agency and her entitlement to share her experience when, where and with whom she chose. Once she did so, she should have been treated with dignity instead of as a suspect in an attempt to disrupt Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 29, 2018 3:54:47 GMT
Senate Judiciary committee investigators have much of the same authority to investigate as the FBI. Trust me, I've experienced one for more than a year. I refer to it as the year I had no life. They are not partisan pussies, they are quite good at their job and are relentless. The committee could/should have investigated this from the very beginning. In my experience and level of process knowledge, the call for FBI investigation is absolutely a farce and firmly based in political game play. Committee investigations are also open to other members of the committee. As much as I would love someone more centrist than Kavanaugh, and as much as I detest Trump, what is happening now is ripping shreds out of Senate rules and process that will have further reaching ramifications in the future I fear. Explain, please. Are you saying that when the accusations arose, an investigation was done at the behest or the committee using their own investigators? So the Democrats ignored that report so they could make public waves by agitating for an FBI investigation? Or is it that the committee investigation was not done by its own investigators and the Democrats could have requested one themselves instead of lobbying for an FBI investigation? Side question: for the routine background investigations of the nominee, does the committee normally just rely on the already available reports (assumedly FBI requested by the nominator/president)? Is it the the flouting of committee internal investigative protocol that you feel has the future ramifications? How so? (Sorry, not being argumentative. Trying to understand, but I think my brain is leaking out my pores.)
|
|
|
Post by jinxmom2003 on Sept 29, 2018 3:55:15 GMT
Too bad it is Friday night, but the FBI does work round the clock! They’re already hard at work beginning to contact witnesses.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 29, 2018 3:57:39 GMT
The Senate Judiciary Committee can place persons under subpoena for persons to testify before them. Too late. Motion for subpoena voted down 11-10 this afternoon and Kavanaugh has already been voted out of committee.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Sept 29, 2018 4:03:53 GMT
Understand how you feel Sarah. Sorry you are offended.
Please note, my comments are firmly based on what I know of Senate Committee rules and I was not implicating that one side or the other was any more or less guilty of game play. My stance is more about both sides giving the F/U to Senate rules. They do have mechanisms to investigate while maintaining confidentiality provided all adhere to them. Sadly, that system is broken. So while I understand the why of Senator Feinstein's commitment to confidentiality, it still pains me that the Senate has become one that she felt she had to. That to me, is what is more disturbing. That the very foundation of Senate rules/processes appear to be that broken. If we can't trust the rules and process of government, the institution can never be trusted. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Sept 29, 2018 4:09:22 GMT
Senate Judiciary committee investigators have much of the same authority to investigate as the FBI. Trust me, I've experienced one for more than a year. I refer to it as the year I had no life. They are not partisan pussies, they are quite good at their job and are relentless. The committee could/should have investigated this from the very beginning. In my experience and level of process knowledge, the call for FBI investigation is absolutely a farce and firmly based in political game play. Committee investigations are also open to other members of the committee. As much as I would love someone more centrist than Kavanaugh, and as much as I detest Trump, what is happening now is ripping shreds out of Senate rules and process that will have further reaching ramifications in the future I fear. Explain, please. Are you saying that when the accusations arose, an investigation was done at the behest or the committee using their own investigators? So the Democrats ignored that report so they could make public waves by agitating for an FBI investigation? Or is it that the committee investigation was not done by its own investigators and the Democrats could have requested one themselves instead of lobbying for an FBI investigation? Side question: for the routine background investigations of the nominee, does the committee normally just rely on the already available reports (assumedly FBI requested by the nominator/president)? Is it the the flouting of committee internal investigative protocol that you feel has the future ramifications? How so? (Sorry, not being argumentative. Trying to understand, but I think my brain is leaking out my pores.) Not at all, I'm saying, that if the accusations arose when a member of the committee was notified, Senate Judiciary investigators COULD have conducted an investigation that would have been comparable to what the FBI is now going to do. That couldn't/didn't happen, so here we are. My point was that Senate investigators in some respects have more authority for testimony (such as subpoena for testimony before the committee) that the FBI will not.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 29, 2018 4:12:36 GMT
I read somewhere this evening that a referral was made to the Montgomery County police today, requesting an investigation. I take great offense to the notion that Dr. Ford is a political pawn of the Democrats. She came forward when she did for reasons she has now explained under oath. Her timing and her reasons were not political. Senator Frinstein respected her desire to remain confidential until that letter was leaked. The original reporter has confirmed the leak did not come from Feinstein’s office. When you allege that this is all political machinations, you rob Dr. Ford of her agency and her entitlement to share her experience when, where and with whom she chose. Once she did so, she should have been treated with dignity instead of as a suspect in an attempt to disrupt Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. Yes!!! YES YES!!! I BELIEVE her, as do many, many people.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 29, 2018 4:18:39 GMT
So far, Mark Judge has already said (through atty) he will cooperate with FBI. Same with P J Smyth.
There are many more that I haven't read if they will: Leland Keyser, James Roche, Elizabeth Rasor, Chris Garrett (Squi on the calendar), the mystery "Tobin" that's on the calendar, Tim Gaudette, Tom Kaine, Renate Dolphin, Liz Swisher, Chris Dudley.
Ford also had: Adela Gildo-Mazzon, Keith Koegler, Rebecca White, Christine's husband Russell
I don't know yet if Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick have said they'll cooperate. (Avenatti was relatively quiet today)
|
|
|
Post by megop on Sept 29, 2018 4:22:59 GMT
Just one more comment because I should have just kept my mouth shut here. Not even sure why I dipped my toe back in to weigh in on a political thread after swearing them off.
Just my opinion, but this hearing is absolutely reflective of how people who care about politics and policy relate to each other now. That is no one party or one person's fault. That is upon all of us. We rely on the strength of the institution of government and that institution relies on we the people. If WE as people dig our respective partisan heels in the sand and stop considering opposing views having the possibility of grains of truth, then how can we expect better from DC? I recognize I'm probably a pollyanna with my hope that Washington can right itself, but admittedly, today, I lost quite a bit of hope.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Sept 29, 2018 4:27:07 GMT
The Senate Judiciary Committee can place persons under subpoena for persons to testify before them. Too late. Motion for subpoena voted down 11-10 this afternoon and Kavanaugh has already been voted out of committee. Exactly why I think both sides are playing games with the Senate rules. And with that, I'm out, still hoping justice for all will prevail.
|
|
|
Post by quinlove on Sept 29, 2018 4:36:29 GMT
allipeas and casii ~ I truly hope that you can get some comfort from the outpouring of love and support coming to you from all of your pea friends. ❤️💜💙💛💚🧡💜💛❤️
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 19:26:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 5:17:43 GMT
I've read through it all. Watched transfixed with many of you. Relived my own experience and have been highly stressed the past couple of days. Unfortunately my father has chosen Kavanaugh as his golden calf, so I finally sat down and wrote out my story for him and my sisters and hit send. No response yet, but he's been known to publicly have facebook meltdowns when he feels we've been disobedient, so I told my children no to engage should their grandfather lash out, but be prepared. I was in grade school. It was the oldest son of family friends who were there for a visit. I have no proof, but rest assured, it happened. Wishing you well.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 19:26:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 5:26:50 GMT
Senate Judiciary committee investigators have much of the same authority to investigate as the FBI. Trust me, I've experienced one for more than a year. I refer to it as the year I had no life. They are not partisan pussies, they are quite good at their job and are relentless. The committee could/should have investigated this from the very beginning. In my experience and level of process knowledge, the call for FBI investigation is absolutely a farce and firmly based in political game play. Committee investigations are also open to other members of the committee. As much as I would love someone more centrist than Kavanaugh, and as much as I detest Trump, what is happening now is ripping shreds out of Senate rules and process that will have further reaching ramifications in the future I fear. Too late. Merrick Garland.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Sept 29, 2018 8:38:58 GMT
Thank you to allipeas and iamkristinl16 and casii and Just T and anybody I forgot for their exquisite courage here. Your honesty is astonishing; I can’t even imagine the maelstrom of pain and catharsis that results from the retelling. Calls to sexual violence hotlines increased 200% yesterday. It beggars belief that after all we are collectively learning (or, unfortunately, remembering) about the pathology of victimhood, some are still beating the same skeptical drumbeat about why Dr. Ford made a conditional disclosure, why she took a polygraph, etc. She explained it all yesterday: she was conflicted, afraid, unsure, didn’t know who to contact. Imagine: caucusing with friends on the beach, making those first tentative efforts to connect, getting advice to use counsel, calling lawyers from the Walgreens parking lot, and then heeding their advice to take the polygraph in case she fully divulged. All while trying to hide the situation from her parents and attend her grandmother’s funeral. But beat-beat-beat...something’s off, who acts like that?, it’s just so perplexing, it.makes.no.sense. Meanwhile, everything about Brett Kavenaugh’s choices yesterday makes.total.sense because of the life and death stakes. Stakes work both ways. Only one side of this stake can be pointed, though, no matter how much people pretend otherwise. We can’t set up a “He said; she said” showdown and then let the referee hold up both fighters’ hands in victory as the crowd roars. The wishful thinking, cop-out official narrative line, “She’s such a fine, brave woman...and he’s so justified in his anger” defies reason. Mucking it up some more with the vast Democratic conspiracy schtick creates even less sense, as that sucks every inch of wind out of the Brave Dr. Ford image pretense. No matter. The important thing is it creates a handy mustache-twirling villain for those happy to go along with the expository convenience. The DEMOCRATS tied Christin Blassey Ford to the railroad tracks. Good thing she had a one-piece swimming suit on. Just want to say - you're wasted here
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Sept 29, 2018 11:25:35 GMT
I love it when you participate.
One of my biggest frustrations over the last few days though is that partisans ARE trying to paint Dr. Ford as a liar without saying she's a liar. When they (and Judge Kavanaugh) say things like "there have been 6 FBI investigations and nothing was discovered." Yes, of course that's true. And it's true because Dr. Ford CHOSE not to come forward until now. The investigations didn't find anything because Dr. Ford didn't participate in them. And then there are the allegations that the Democrats played a dirty trick by keeping this secret until the last minute. The Democrats kept it secret because Dr. Ford CHOSE not to allow Diane Feinstein to discuss anything in her letter with anyone. Now every one of us probably has a different opinion about the choices Dr. Ford made but given what happened when she did come forward, it's hard to judge her for being reticent. And although there may be a strict, longstanding policy of how the committees do these investigations, that information isn't known or readily available to the public at large. Her deliberate choices and request for absolute confidentiality even as to the contents of the letter may have subverted the normal process but I simply don't think it's fair to paint the result of that as political gamesmanship on the part of the Democrats.
And what happened when Senator Feinstein finally turned the letter over to the FBI? Dr. Ford's name was leaked within 24 hours and the Intercept somehow got a copy of the letter.
So I just don't know. Obviously, these allegations if true, disqualify him. But when you have an already toxic political atmosphere which make the primary witness unwilling to come forward until the last minute, what you get is a last minute investigation in a toxic, political environment. I don't think there was any gamesmanship beforehand on either side except by the sole individual who decided to leak her name & letter. I DO still believe/hope that had Dr. Ford succeeded in conveying her information to the committee/background check people before he was the nominee, they would have told the President he was disqualified and it would have been a different nominee. She didn't effectively do that because she didn't know how the process works and she was too afraid to be aggressive about getting her story out there so we're left with this mess.
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Sept 29, 2018 12:00:06 GMT
I'm just finishing yesterday's live testimony. All I can say in response to reading this thread is, I am a woman, based on what I've viewed, I absolutely am embarrassed at the appalling political game being played at two people's expense that I'm witnessing here. God help us all. After yesterday, and his performance, I believe Brett Kavanaugh is every bit as much a part of the political game going on as every Senator in that room. I think the only completely innocent person, of making this political gamesmanship, is Dr Ford. Kavanaugh illustrates his political gamesmanship and lack of impartiality that I believe will translate to the bench. That alone should disqualify him.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 29, 2018 13:01:58 GMT
Tony says it much better than I. This is exactly how I feel.
Judges should NOT lie, tell falsehoods, get paid off, or have bias. The assault allegations are just the tail end for me.
Not only, this, but I truly believe Kavanaugh is an alcoholic. The demeanour he showed at the hearing parallel those of my father and my bffs DH (who died last year from complications of cirrhosis). The temperament, the crying, the anger, the defiance..all traits and telltale signs.
I also think he'd been drinking before the hearing. Red nose and cheeks, eyes were cloudy and hooded.
Of course just my opinion, it the way he described how much he "loved beer", it clicked for me.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 29, 2018 13:14:20 GMT
Few reactions to the hearing:
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 29, 2018 13:33:59 GMT
I love it when you participate. One of my biggest frustrations over the last few days though is that partisans ARE trying to paint Dr. Ford as a liar without saying she's a liar. When they (and Judge Kavanaugh) say things like "there have been 6 FBI investigations and nothing was discovered." Yes, of course that's true. And it's true because Dr. Ford CHOSE not to come forward until now. The investigations didn't find anything because Dr. Ford didn't participate in them. And then there are the allegations that the Democrats played a dirty trick by keeping this secret until the last minute. The Democrats kept it secret because Dr. Ford CHOSE not to allow Diane Feinstein to discuss anything in her letter with anyone. Now every one of us probably has a different opinion about the choices Dr. Ford made but given what happened when she did come forward, it's hard to judge her for being reticent. And although there may be a strict, longstanding policy of how the committees do these investigations, that information isn't known or readily available to the public at large. Her deliberate choices and request for absolute confidentiality even as to the contents of the letter may have subverted the normal process but I simply don't think it's fair to paint the result of that as political gamesmanship on the part of the Democrats. And what happened when Senator Feinstein finally turned the letter over to the FBI? Dr. Ford's name was leaked within 24 hours and the Intercept somehow got a copy of the letter. So I just don't know. Obviously, these allegations if true, disqualify him. But when you have an already toxic political atmosphere which make the primary witness unwilling to come forward until the last minute, what you get is a last minute investigation in a toxic, political environment. I don't think there was any gamesmanship beforehand on either side except by the sole individual who decided to leak her name & letter. I DO still believe/hope that had Dr. Ford succeeded in conveying her information to the committee/background check people before he was the nominee, they would have told the President he was disqualified and it would have been a different nominee. She didn't effectively do that because she didn't know how the process works and she was too afraid to be aggressive about getting her story out there so we're left with this mess. Sarah*H so perfectly stated! Thank you! Oh and I do like readingvwhat @megpop writes!
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 29, 2018 13:35:15 GMT
I'm just finishing yesterday's live testimony. All I can say in response to reading this thread is, I am a woman, based on what I've viewed, I absolutely am embarrassed at the appalling political game being played at two people's expense that I'm witnessing here. God help us all. After yesterday, and his performance, I believe Brett Kavanaugh is every bit as much a part of the political game going on as every Senator in that room. I think the only completely innocent person, of making this political gamesmanship, is Dr Ford. Kavanaugh illustrates his political gamesmanship and lack of impartiality that I believe will translate to the bench. That alone should disqualify him. Hit the nail dead center! YES!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by quinlove on Sept 29, 2018 14:01:02 GMT
Wow. Did Jim Carrey draw that picture ? He certainly captured his personality 😊
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 29, 2018 14:22:13 GMT
Not at all, I'm saying, that if the accusations arose when a member of the committee was notified, Senate Judiciary investigators COULD have conducted an investigation that would have been comparable to what the FBI is now going to do. That couldn't/didn't happen, so here we are. My point was that Senate investigators in some respects have more authority for testimony (such as subpoena for testimony before the committee) that the FBI will not. I am quoting one paragraph from a long article written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, including copies of the redacted e-mails. Within the content of the article. without final negotiations were complete it seems Mr Davis/the staff of the committee asked Kavanaugh about the allegations ....... seemingly keeping him in the loop, which I personally am not sure that is the right way to do it. I don't know..... I'm just not sure the person being investigated should have the evidence as it is provided by those making the allegations. E-mails Show That Republican Senate Staff Stymied a Kavanaugh Accuser’s Effort to Give TestimonyBy Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer 9:05 A.M. Sept 28, 2018 E-mails exchanged between Ramirez’s legal team and Republican and Democratic Senate staffers obtained by The New Yorker have been reproduced below. Contact information has been redacted. The e-mails have also been placed in chronological order.www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/e-mails-show-republican-senate-staff-stymied-a-kavanaugh-accusers-effort-to-give-testimonyAnd what happened when Senator Feinstein finally turned the letter over to the FBI? Dr. Ford's name was leaked within 24 hours and the Intercept somehow got a copy of the letter. Unfortunately leaks happen all the time.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 29, 2018 14:27:54 GMT
Just one more comment because I should have just kept my mouth shut here. Not even sure why I dipped my toe back in to weigh in on a political thread after swearing them off. I appreciate your comments. I appreciate anyone who is restful respectful. it is a way to understand why people make their decisions, and way to learn more too. Hot topics bring out the worse and best of people.. seems we have lost the middle ground. ETA: Although maybe we would all like to be with restful people these days........
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 19:26:25 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 14:29:44 GMT
"This is the time for consideration and minute examination: and I think the great subject, when viewed seriously, without passion or prejudice, will bear and brighten under the severest examination of the rational inquirer." ~ Pelatiah Webster, Remarks on the Address of Sixteen Members of the Assembly of Pennsylvania 12 Oct. 1787 press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch9s2.html"But in the sciences of morals and politics, men are found far less tractable. To a certain degree, it is right and useful that this should be the case. Caution and investigation are a necessary armor against error and imposition. But this untractableness may be carried too far, and may degenerate into obstinacy, perverseness, or disingenuity. Though it cannot be pretended that the principles of moral and political knowledge have, in general, the same degree of certainty with those of the mathematics, yet they have much better claims in this respect than, to judge from the conduct of men in particular situations, we should be disposed to allow them. The obscurity is much oftener in the passions and prejudices of the reasoner than in the subject. Men, upon too many occasions, do not give their own understandings fair play; but, yielding to some untoward bias, they entangle themselves in words and confound themselves in subtleties." ~ Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 31 (Concerning the General Power of Taxation) Tuesday, January 1, 1788 www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed31.htm“Information must be such that a reasonable man, acting without passion or prejudice, would fairly have suspected the person of committing the offence.” ~ Powers of arrest and search, [...] without a warrant Underlying principle : reasonable suspicion - common law definition [Allen v Wright (1838)] The juror's oath is a solemn pledge to "well and truly try the issues." That means that the juror will consider carefully all of the evidence, will find the facts without passion or prejudice, will apply the law without fear or favor, will put out of mind and heart every extraneous matter, and will "a true verdict give according to the evidence." courts.delaware.gov/Jury%20Services/?jurorpetit.htm
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 29, 2018 14:44:57 GMT
Explain, please. Are you saying that when the accusations arose, an investigation was done at the behest or the committee using their own investigators? Not sure but it seems that the initial investigators are the Judiciary staffers. After yesterday, and his performance, I believe Brett Kavanaugh is every bit as much a part of the political game going on as every Senator in that room. I think the only completely innocent person, of making this political gamesmanship, is Dr Ford. Kavanaugh illustrates his political gamesmanship and lack of impartiality that I believe will translate to the bench. That alone should disqualify him. ALL courts should be impartial, but absolutely the US Supreme Court. Discounting all else, Kavanaugh has been and continues to be too political.(my opinion)
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 29, 2018 14:52:45 GMT
All I can say in defense is if I and my senators are part of the “gamesmanship,” I have no problem with it. I’m not lying awake at night lamenting how I and my representatives have ruined Washington. At the end of the day, this is politics, with two main parties of divergent values. Rarely shall the two meet, often shall the two joust.
If anyone is bothered by how the Democrats are now opposing a lying and belligerent SC nominee, they have to look no farther than themselves to understand why. What’s happening right now is no aberration. It’s a continuation of the hardball tactics the Republican Party saw fit to employ for ten years now. It just galls them that Democrats know how to hardball as well.
Denying a president his statutory protected right and privilege to seat a justice was just one part of the loud and ugly obstructionism that birthed and animated the Tea Party. As if the damage wasn’t enough, they saw fit to hand power to Trump, a man who eats gamesmanship for breakfast and regards sexual assault as the privilege of the rich and powerful male.
So, no, I'm not going to shame myself for what’s happening now, especially after being accused by a Republican senator of “the most unethical sham” he’s seen in politics. It’s revolting that the man who spewed this was the same man who stood in defiance with his colleagues against everything a Democratic president was constitutionally empowered to do. And then crowed about it. THAT is what I consider THE most unethical sham.
Gamesmanship? I say bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 29, 2018 14:58:10 GMT
The juror's oath is a solemn pledge to "well and truly try the issues." That means that the juror will consider carefully all of the evidence, will find the facts without passion or prejudice, will apply the law without fear or favor, will put out of mind and heart every extraneous matter, and will "a true verdict give according to the evidence." courts.delaware.gov/Jury%20Services/?jurorpetit.htmThis was truly proven in the Manafort decision. After the trial one juror interviewed stated that she was a Trump supporter, and was not (I think) in favor of the Mueller investigation. She was able to evaluated the evidence she heard IN the court room and found him guilty, whether we all agree or not she did her duty with honor as did all the other eleven jurors. This is done many thousands of times in our courts daily.
|
|