Given that the FBI has already said they aren’t going to do that, it would seem to carry very little risk for you.
So fuckin what? This ain’t a sporting event. Fuckin thrown Feinstein in jail and feed her on moldy Cheerios, I don’t give a shit, I DO NOT WANT A SEXUAL PREDATOR ON THE SUPREME COURT.
I’m aware. It’s politics.
Haha. No.
There was a time when the Manchins and Heitkamps of the world faced a difficult vote. That time is gone.
They can easily vote no because:
[ol]
[li]Kavanaugh’s White House records have been concealed[/li][li]We have seen that Kavanaugh has lied under oath numerous times[/li][li]There is a credible accusation of rape against Kavanaugh[/li][/ol]
They have a metric fuck ton of plausible deniability that their no vote is purely partisan rather than about the integrity of the Court and all that good stuff. They do not have a difficult vote right before the mid-term. The opposition handed them an easy button.
I think it was a fairly dubious accusation to begin with, and it’s growing more dubious the more objections Ford throws up to testifying.
Is there any particular reason we should give any weight to what you think? You also think red state dems have a difficult confirmation vote coming up when that is clearly wrong. That was the point that you sidestepped in your previous post FYI.
Sure, and Ford replied today: a period of fact-finding should precede the hearing. I agree with that and advocated that yesterday. That’s what a good faith investigation would involve, as opposed to this railroad to a fixed conclusion.
Ok, then if the FBI of this Republican administration refuses to do a background check of somebody potentially susceptible to blackmail, and there is nobody else willing to conduct pre-testimony interviews, then I think it’s fair to refuse to confirm Kavanaugh until pertinent information is provided. Shrug.
I agree with this up to a point. If she doesn’t cooperate with investigators, then my view of all of this would change. I don’t see evidence of this though. The position laid out in today’s letter seems reasonable to me. DocumentCloud
Look, if you make an allegation but refuse to discuss it with law enforcement, there’s simply a limited weight that can be placed upon your assertions. I’ll note though that Dr. Ford in fact did not leak this to the media. If she doesn’t want to cooperate that’s fine. But then it also be permissible to deweight her claims.
In this world though, Dr. Ford has requested a full investigation.
If “what happens at X stays at X” does turn out to be a frequent bon mot for Kavanaugh, that seems…odd. Why would that be? It’s not as though it’s a particularly witty thing to say.
No more reason than I should give any weight to what you think.
I’m sure it’s less-difficult than it was a week ago, but I still wouldn’t be surprised if, in their heart of hearts, some of the red-state Dems were dreading the thought that this might come up for a vote before the mid-term. If it’s a non-issue, they could all declare their intention to vote against Kavanaugh today, to the adulation of the adoring masses, correct?
What you think is fair (and what I think is fair) mattereth not. It only matters what Senators Grassley, McConnell, and 48 of their colleagues think.
Huh? I think you missed an important fact somewhere along the way. From WaPo:
On what planet is that not the very definition of “leak this to the media”?
reports say McConnell wanted another pick so he may not be shedding too many tears if Brett goes down.
That’s the beauty of the easy button they’ve been handed. They don’t have to declare anything while this is in the air and if Republicans give it short shrift they can use that as the reason for their no vote. The only way they face a tough vote is if at the end of a thorough investigation, Kavanaugh comes out smelling like a rose, and frankly, I think that’s extremely unlikely for a number of reasons.
There was time when there was pressure for red state dems to confirm, but now the Republicans have to nail a five rail bank shot before they can apply that pressure.
She won’t testify until there is an investigation. That’s wonderful. The GOP is being played! We need to get control of this process back and, as I said earlier, quit letting them call the shots. She has the floor if she wants it. If she doesn’t, then let’s vote. In fact, I’m tempted to say that we should subpoena her to Monday’s hearing.
ETA: But I fear that I am falling in their trap by the last statement.
As demonstrated by Dr. William Masconi, Professor of Applied Physics…
Republicans sure are acting as if this is the last Supreme Court position they’re going to fill for a generation.
Nobody else finds it suspicious that Ford wants an FBI “investigation”: the exact same Dem talking points that have built throughout today? She’s a pawn. We should never have entertained this in the first place and should put a stop to it now.
Of course! Why didn’t I see it before? The Democrats set up the whole thing! Kavanaugh wasn’t on the first list, he didn’t make the sweet list at first, and then, suddenly! There he is! The Democrats put his name there! First step…
Then they started talking darkly about the Kavster’s somewhat…extravagant…views on executive divinity, immune to the vexations of law! What better way to focus Il Douche’s attention! First they had to plant the briar patch, and then beg B’rer Dipshit not to throw them in it! Probably had to repeat it a few times, the boy’s a mite thick.
Tell you what, Hoss, if they are that clever, you should consider negotiating terms for your surrender…
What good are FBI background investigations of major political appointees if they are “prohibited” from investigating non-Federal crimes?
Jesus Christ, if Charlie Manson had been nominated to be Secretary of State, would he have gotten a thumbs up because his murders were just state matters?
I’m guessing that the real reason the FBI won’t investigate is that Director Wray likes his job and it would be a real shame if something happened to it.
NM
“The girl’s full of it cuz she ain’t doing this like I think she should.”