Supreme court nominees

[Victoria33]

Let’s look at this from another perspective. Both Hatch and Grassely claimed in the Anita Hill case that it was important for FBI to get involved into Hill’s accusations, why are these two singing a different tune now? And why is it that the accuser wants the investigation but Kavanaugh doesn’t? If I’m innocent, especially trying to avoid any cloud that might hang over my head if I’m approved, then why wouldn’t I want such an investigation to try and prove that there’s nothing to confirm the accusation?

And why the rush? The Senate Republicans sure weren’t in any rush with Obama’s Garland’s nomination? Also, it’s not like Trump’s term is almost over.

I guess the question is “What’s more important: that we rush through this SCOTUS confirmation or that we get this possible criminal case right about a judge who might have a lifetime position that affects the whole country?”.

That’s easy, maybe the Anita Hill hoax involved a federal setting.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Indirectly they do. The fact of these threats answers the question “Why did she hesitate to come forward?” which has been used to throw doubt on her claim. The less doubt one has of her claim the more one considers that perhaps Kavanaugh might not be fit for this particular job.

There is no way to know where these threats are coming from. Keith Ellison’s accuser claims threats as well.

One can imagine all sorts of conspiracies if one is determined enough to do so. But short of putting on that tinfoil hat, the normal expectation is that when you get death threats, those threats normally come from those who mean to threaten you.

 

[Victoria33]

One can imagine all sorts of conspiracies if one is determined enough to do so. But short of putting on that tinfoil hat, the normal expectation is that when you get death threats, those threats normally come from those who mean to threaten you.

I don’t know, this to me, is a hoax to begin with, why not do more to gin up sympathy? By the way, I was not calling anything conspiracy, I was saying, we do not know.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is because she understood, being the smart woman that she it, that there may very well be such threats, and the threats just prove her fear was justified.

Let’s think about that. This smart woman gave a letter to Feinstein, and she no doubt had some purpose in doing it; either hoping Feinstein wouldn’t release it but simply be influenced herself, or thinking perhaps to release it later.

So Feinstein, we’re told, kept the letter from the committee and Kavanaugh until at the very last minute Ford supposedly tells Feinstein to release it.

And Ford, being a smart woman and all, you’re saying, knew all along that she would receive death threats regardless of when Feinstein released it. She just put it off to the moment when it would cause the most drama and possibly foul up the proceedings, causing more people to resent her than would otherwise have been the case.

No good. This is the anti-Catholic drama it appears to be; put together in order to prevent a possibly (he’s Catholic, isn’t he?) prolife person to be confirmed and possibly threaten the Democrat religion of abortion. And as an abortion-promoter, that would not be something Ford would want.

 

[Victoria33]

This was posted in forum already but this professor did do abortion pill studies,

Christine Blasey Ford Published Eight studies about "Abortion Pill" and Works for Company that Produces It | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Professor Christine Blasey Ford, while working for Stanford University, was also affiliated with Corcept Therapeutics (2006 – 2011).

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Christine Blasey Ford Published Eight studies about “Abortion Pill” and Works for Company that Produces It​

She very much has conflicting interests in this case, won’t come out and testify? Asks FBI to investigate? Delay, delay, delay

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is because she understood, being the smart woman that she it, that there may very well be such threats, and the threats just prove her fear was justified.

Let’s think about that. This smart woman gave a letter to Feinstein, and she no doubt had some purpose in doing it; either hoping Feinstein wouldn’t release it but simply be influenced herself, or thinking perhaps to release it later.

So Feinstein, we’re told, kept the letter from the committee and Kavanaugh until at the very last minute Ford supposedly tells Feinstein to release it.

And Ford, being a smart woman and all, you’re saying, knew all along that she would receive death threats regardless of when Feinstein released it. She just put it off to the moment when it would cause the most drama and possibly foul up the proceedings, causing more people to resent her than would otherwise have been the case.

Or…you could look at it this way. She was hoping her testimony would not be needed. But eventually she worked up the courage to put up with all the pushback she expected. As Trevor Noah put it, it is like the defense attorney saying:

“Your honor, why would the prosecution submit the murder weapon as evidence now, during the trial? The timing seems suspicious to me! I rest my case!”

 

[Victoria33]

Yes**, the timing seems suspicious** alright. Maybe that should be emboldened as well.

 

[ucfengr]

The FBI would certainly have an interest in investigating it now.

The first step for any law enforcement agency opening an investigation in a case like this would be the accuser coming in and filing a complaint, which as far as I can tell, hasn’t happened.

 

[Victoria33]

Or…you could look at it this way. She was hoping her testimony would not be needed. But eventually she worked up the courage to put up with all the pushback she expected. As Trevor Noah put it, it is like the defense attorney saying:

A murder weapon in your illustrious example is not the same thing as not having the right to face one’s accuser? Is that a principle of law you do not agree with? It seems that is what is set up when both of them are to testify.

Would one really argue hearsay evidence or whatever, just a claim without substantiation should be enough to derail a SCOTUS nominee? This is unbelievable.

“Take Christine’s word, she wouldn’t have even made her name available, the timelines don’t match, she never told anyone about it”

Wow, just wow.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The first step for any law enforcement agency opening an investigation in a case like this would be the accuser coming in and filing a complaint, which as far as I can tell, hasn’t happened.

That will not happen. I think Gen. Flynn’s fate would be powerfully dissuasive to Ms. Ford.

 

[ucfengr]

No need. She has given her story publicly. But you know that.
And you know that filing a complaint is not a sine qua non of the existence of an allegation.

Filing a complaint is the first step to initiating a criminal investigation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The FBI would certainly have an interest in investigating it now.

The first step for any law enforcement agency opening an investigation in a case like this would be the accuser coming in and filing a complaint, which as far as I can tell, hasn’t happened.

You are confusing this with a criminal investigation. The FBI investigates many things besides criminal charges.

 

[ucfengr]

You are confusing this with a criminal investigation.

Attempted rape is a crime, is it not? And one that should be punished, right?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Or…you could look at it this way. She was hoping her testimony would not be needed. But eventually she worked up the courage to put up with all the pushback she expected. As Trevor Noah put it, it is like the defense attorney saying:

A murder weapon in your illustrious example is not the same thing as not having the right to face one’s accuser? Is that a principle of law you do not agree with?

As I have said before, the principle of facing your accusers in person only applies in criminal proceedings, not in job interviews.

 

[KMC]

LeafByNiggle:
As Trevor Noah put it, it is like the defense attorney saying:

“Your honor, why would the prosecution submit the murder weapon as evidence now, during the trial? The timing seems suspicious to me! I rest my case!”

[/QUOTE]
Except in this case the “murder weapon” was in possession of the prosecution for months, who failed to present it at the “trial”, and only as people have left the court room is the attempt being made to submit it.

 

[Victoria33]

As I have said before, the principle of facing your accusers only applies in criminal proceedings, not in job interviews.

So, you equate a hearing to become a Justice on the US Supreme Court before the Senate as a job interview? Wow, just wow.

Also, per this logic, anyone can say anything and not take any heat from it from testifying. If she testifies, she’s under oath. Does that occur in your job interviews? If she states falsehoods, it is her that can be prosecuted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You are confusing this with a criminal investigation.

Attempted rape is a crime, is it not? And one that should be punished, right?

It is not a federal crime. The FBI normally would not get involved. But in this case they are not considering the crime. They are considering a SCOTUS appointment.

 

[ucfengr]

It is not a federal crime. The FBI normally would not get involved. But in this case they are not considering the crime. They are considering a SCOTUS appointment.

Sounds like him being a potential rapist is only of tertiary import to you. The real object is to keep him off the court and any handy club will do. Considering this man has children (female, I believe), and coaches girls softball, I would think him being a rapist would be the main concern, but I guess not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As I have said before, the principle of facing your accusers only applies in criminal proceedings, not in job interviews.

So, you equate a hearing to become a Justice on the US Supreme Court before the Senate as a job interview? Wow, just wow.

Yes, it is a job interview. For a very very important job.

Also, per this logic, anyone can say anything and not take any heat from it from testifying. If she testifies, she’s under oath. Does that occur in your job interviews? If she states falsehoods, it is her that can be prosecuted.

If her testimony is to be taken seriously by the Senators, she will in all probability have to testify under oath. And she has agreed to testify under oath, after the FBI investigates her story.

 

[JonNC]

No need. She has given her story publicly. But you know that.

Then you must go on a presumption that there has been no crime.

And you know that filing a complaint is not a sine qua non of the existence of an allegation. And you know that FBI background checks are not limited to matters for which charges have been filed. So enough.

It is merely hear say, rumor, nothing at all legal. An investigation, then , should be brief. Talk to the three. Done.