|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 4, 2018 15:56:03 GMT
did anyone see interviews yesterday where a Democratic Senator said there WERE inconsistencies in the previous 6 FBI investigations into Kavanaugh??
I saw a youtube video of a CNN interview where the Senator (don't remember which Senator; he's a tallish, thin man with sort of sunken cheeks) said, "I can't go into specifics here, but the quote the Republicans wrote on Twitter when referring to 'unblemished FBI investigations' (I'm paraphrasing) is not true, and they need to retract it." The interviewer tried to press him on what he meant, but he wouldn't say any more than that.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 4, 2018 15:56:43 GMT
What is happening is a travesty to the American justice system. The Republicans are LIARS. Fucking liars.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 4, 2018 16:07:54 GMT
did anyone see interviews yesterday where a Democratic Senator said there WERE inconsistencies in the previous 6 FBI investigations into Kavanaugh?? I saw a youtube video of a CNN interview where the Senator (don't remember which Senator; he's a tallish, thin man with sort of sunken cheeks) said, "I can't go into specifics here, but the quote the Republicans wrote on Twitter when referring to 'unblemished FBI investigations' (I'm paraphrasing) is not true, and they need to retract it." The interviewer tried to press him on what he meant, but he wouldn't say any more than that. NO, but it took THREE years to confirm him previously, 2003-2006. I do not remember the details! Right here we peas have documented at least 5+ lies from the his testimony! That is perjury!
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 4, 2018 16:14:43 GMT
the tweet was from the Republican staffers of the Judiciary committee-- "Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports, which the committee has reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there ever a whiff of ANY issue - at all - related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse." And apparently the Dems sent Grassley a letter saying they need to take down that tweet, or correct it, because there WERE things in the previous background checks. Things that they couldn't divulge in a public setting... Grassley's staff responded that nothing in that tweet is untruthful.
CNN video with Wolf Blitzer: Congressional correspondent talking first, then Senator Richard Blumenthal comes in at about 4:33, talking about the lack of proper interviews and whatever is inaccurate that he can't clarify.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Oct 4, 2018 16:15:53 GMT
did anyone see interviews yesterday where a Democratic Senator said there WERE inconsistencies in the previous 6 FBI investigations into Kavanaugh?? I saw a youtube video of a CNN interview where the Senator (don't remember which Senator; he's a tallish, thin man with sort of sunken cheeks) said, "I can't go into specifics here, but the quote the Republicans wrote on Twitter when referring to 'unblemished FBI investigations' (I'm paraphrasing) is not true, and they need to retract it." The interviewer tried to press him on what he meant, but he wouldn't say any more than that. Are you talking about Schumer? Eta: ok, never mind.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 4, 2018 17:57:41 GMT
A question... How long should it take to read AND comprehend 1000 page typed report?
|
|
Rhondito
Pearl Clutcher
MississipPea
Posts: 4,708
Jun 25, 2014 19:33:19 GMT
|
Post by Rhondito on Oct 4, 2018 18:07:03 GMT
A question... How long should it take to read AND comprehend 1000 page typed report? It's 1000 pages?? How? They interviewed 6 people and got 1000 pages worth of information?
To answer your question, divide and conquer? That's the only way I can even fathom them trying to get through it.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 4, 2018 18:11:49 GMT
A question... How long should it take to read AND comprehend 1000 page typed report? I'm sure there's a summary. Plus they have all that experience with bills they pass but never read.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 4, 2018 18:14:10 GMT
A question... How long should it take to read AND comprehend 1000 page typed report? I'm sure there's a summary. Plus they have all that experience with bills they pass but never read. This. I’m willing to bet that most senators - both sides - will vote without reading the FBI report.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,200
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Oct 4, 2018 18:20:54 GMT
did anyone see interviews yesterday where a Democratic Senator said there WERE inconsistencies in the previous 6 FBI investigations into Kavanaugh?? I saw a youtube video of a CNN interview where the Senator (don't remember which Senator; he's a tallish, thin man with sort of sunken cheeks) said, "I can't go into specifics here, but the quote the Republicans wrote on Twitter when referring to 'unblemished FBI investigations' (I'm paraphrasing) is not true, and they need to retract it." The interviewer tried to press him on what he meant, but he wouldn't say any more than that. NO, but it took THREE years to confirm him previously, 2003-2006. I do not remember the details! Right here we peas have documented at least 5+ lies from the his testimony! That is perjury! I just read yesterday or the day before about the previous three-year confirmation process for K. That wasn't something being talked about much before and it was interesting to see that being mentioned. Good grief - and they feel they need to rush this one through.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 4, 2018 18:28:51 GMT
Just a note— for those of you/us who are extremely upset with the Republicans lying, lying, and lying some more with their unethical bullshit over all of this, please, please, please be prepared for those few that come here to troll us, trash us, and goad—protect yourself from them because you know they will show up to gleefully celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 4, 2018 18:32:04 GMT
“Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pushed back hard on the scope of FBI investigation, calling it “very frustrating.”
He added that not enough relevant people were interviewed in his opinion.
The New Jersey lawmaker suggested that the report he read did have a hint of misconduct regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
“I heard the chairman of the Committee say there’s no hint of misconduct. In plain English what I just read, there are hints of misconduct. So, it’s very frustrating that they didn’t do a thorough investigation that they didn’t interview all the relevant witnesses. They didn’t interview all the potential eyewitnesses,” Booker said. He said that in the documents themselves, there were issues raised that should have been followed up on. Booker blamed it on the scope spelled out by the White House and Republicans on the committee, and said that “perhaps limited the ability of the FBI.”
Booker said there were a number of things in the documents that “call into question what this candidates’ truthfulness is, direct assault on the truthfulness of this candidate that should have been more thoroughly investigated."
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 4, 2018 18:34:33 GMT
So, typical double standard: If Kavenaugh's nomination is not confirmed it's perfectly acceptable for you to feel joy and to express that joy here. But if he's confirmed and people express joy, they're gloating.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 4, 2018 18:36:34 GMT
^^^ aaaaannnndddd..... there it is. That was quicker than I thought!
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 4, 2018 18:37:59 GMT
Oh no, once Kavenaugh is confirmed, I'll be even quicker; just as I know you will be breaking your neck to be the first to post if he's not confirmed
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 4, 2018 18:39:09 GMT
I love it when you guys quote the known liar to support your position about Kavenaugh.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 4, 2018 18:39:13 GMT
A question... How long should it take to read AND comprehend 1000 page typed report? I'm sure there's a summary. Plus they have all that experience with bills they pass but never read. And WHO wrote the summary? The FBI who only spoke to 6/9 people, the WH who lied about a comprehensive investigation.. or at least the president lied. Drinking could surely had a affect on behavior of said subject.... As we saw the president stated only one beer, seemingly affected her memory, but kegs did not affect BK!
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 4, 2018 18:43:00 GMT
Why in the world would the FBI interview either Kavenaugh or Ford? The Judiciary Committee interviewed both of them and Kavenaugh rather agressively. Since all the FBI interviews do is provide the statements of people to give to Congress, what's the point?
Just proves, no investigation would be good enough for those against Kavenaugh unless it dug up something on him. Must really suck that despite 7 FBI investigations, nothing's come up.
|
|
|
Post by chlerbie on Oct 4, 2018 19:10:06 GMT
This "investigation" was just done so they could say, "Oh, look--we gave them an investigation and it still wasn't good enough."
Umm...that would be because it WASN'T good enough. A little thoroughness would go a long way, but let's just push aside evidence, witnesses, etc. and just speed this thing right along.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 4, 2018 19:13:48 GMT
Show me some "evidence" and I'll agree with you. There is none. None. None. Perhaps if it's said often enough people will get it. Just claiming your looking for it doesn't mean it exists. And they've spoken to the people named by Ford. None corroborated her story. Again, none, none, none.
You are simply grasping at straws and looking for any way to keep this man off the bench. And after 7 rounds of FBI investigations, it's ridiculous to claim his confirmation is "speeding" along. all that further delays will bring is more unsubstantiated and increasingly outlandish claims by other women.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 4, 2018 19:27:07 GMT
I'm actually kind of surprised people are surprised. The Anita Hill investigations was 3 days and they talked to a handful of people. It's a background investigation - did people really think this was going to be conducted like a criminal investigation? It's why I was frankly puzzled when they spent more time arguing about it than just doing it when the Dr. Ford first came forward.
|
|
|
Post by chlerbie on Oct 4, 2018 19:28:13 GMT
I'm actually kind of surprised people are surprised. The Anita Hill investigations was 3 days and they talked to a handful of people. It's a background investigation - did people really think this was going to be conducted like a criminal investigation? It's why I was frankly puzzled when they spent more time arguing about it than just doing it when the Dr. Ford first came forward. Naw, not surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 4, 2018 19:29:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 4, 2018 19:29:54 GMT
Like I said. The lying trolls are going to attack, goad, and come rolling in to satisfy their hatefulness here.
Protect yourself and just don’t engage in their fucked up alternative reality and lies.
They support the lying and dishonesty that is witnessed every single day with this administration.
They don’t deal in truth or facts and nothing anyone of us provides as facts will make them see the truth.
And they will ramp up their aggressive goading and posting, don’t fall for their bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 3:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2018 19:35:21 GMT
Sens. Collins and Flake seem satisfied with the FBI, have not indicated how they will vote. Murkowski has not made a statement. Manchin has not indicated which way he is voting; I assume a no vote. As stated upthread, Sen. Heitkamp is voting no. This will definitely hurt her re-election bid. If there is a tie, Pence decides.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Oct 4, 2018 19:36:52 GMT
I'm actually kind of surprised people are surprised. The Anita Hill investigations was 3 days and they talked to a handful of people. It's a background investigation - did people really think this was going to be conducted like a criminal investigation? It's why I was frankly puzzled when they spent more time arguing about it than just doing it when the Dr. Ford first came forward. I agree, had they done it earlier it might even have been finished and Kavanaugh confirmed before any other accusers came forward. I didn't expect a criminal investigation. But as it was specifically an investigation by the FBI into accusations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh I did expect at least the accusers and the accused to be investigated by the FBI. I realize that the SJC spoke with some of them, but that's not their specialty. The FBI are trained to do this. And they were given a week, which isn't even up yet. What would it have hurt to take one day for the FBI to speak to the key players in the investigation? Eta: Anita Hill was also just one accuser so I would expect this to take longer. Eta2: What is the difference in consequences for lying to the FBI and lying during the confirmation hearings? And who is able to charge someone for each? My cynical self suspects that's why the WH didn't want the FBI talking to Kavanaugh. But I'll admit my knowledge is limited in this area.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 4, 2018 19:41:57 GMT
Too bad none of them have addressed the lies to Congress! Perjury by a judge.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 4, 2018 20:02:14 GMT
Too bad none of them have addressed the lies to Congress! Perjury by a judge. And it’s crystal clear. Travesty for justice today. Cognitive dissonance. IOKIYR
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 4, 2018 20:05:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 4, 2018 20:08:06 GMT
|
|