The Political Thread - Machiavelli Edition

[Volourn]

"Just checking a box so they can pretend they've done their due diligence when they vote for him as they were going to do anyway"

 

Or against.

 

Both parties are to blame.

 

And, the FBI deserves a lot of **** too.

 

6 previous FBI investigations turned up nothing. If he is actually guilty, they did a piss poor job investigating him over the years.

[ktchong]

I've changed my mind on Brett Kavanaugh.

I opposed the fast-tracked confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. However, after I read today's new reports of the FBI investigation, I am now leaning towards being OK with Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Here are four of the witnesses named by Dr. Ford - she claimed they were at the party - and interviewed by the FBI:

* Patrick "PJ" Smyth: He denied being at the party.

* Leland Keyser: She also denied being at the party.

* Chris "Squi" Garrett: Also denied having knowledge of Ford's accusation.

* Tim Gaudette: It is unknown what he said in his interview, but given the result of the investigation, I assumed he also denied knowing anything about Ford's accusation.

The FBI also interviewed Debbie Ramirez (the second woman who accused Kavanaugh) and Mark Judge (who is being accused of having participated in the sexual assaults Kavanaugh and other women). I disregard their interviews with the FBI because both were personally involved in the accusations, so neither could be considered as impartial nor neutral.

The FBI interviewed nine people. So there are another three who have not yet been named by the media. I assumed they gave similar answers to Smyth's, Keyser's, Gerrett's and Gaudette's - because the FBI concluded that none of the people interviewed could corroborate Ford's story.

Also, the FBI did expand the investigation and interview more people than what the White House had initially mandated. I would consider  that as a sign of good will on the White House's part.

 

Here is how I look at it:

Ford give a bunch of names and said those people were at the party and knew about the incident. The FBI went to the first person named by Ford, and that person said he was not at the party. So maybe there was a little gap in Ford's memories of the event.

The FBI went to the second person. This second person (Keyser) was supposed to be Ford's best friend in high school. Yet that second person also said that she was not at the party... okay, so Ford's memories have a much bigger gap than I initially thought.

The FBI went to the third person. Oh, finally, someone who was at the party! But then he said he did not know anything about the accusation. He had never heard about it before. Hm.

Personally, if I was the investigator, I would have stopped at this point - because three strikes and she was out. However, the FBI went to the fourth person whom Ford said was at the party. He also said he had never heard about the incident.

Ford's memories are certainly full of big gaps. Now I have to wonder, when Ford said she was 100-percent that the man who tried to rape her was Kavanaugh, was there a big gap there as well?

Anyway, the FBI continued. They got new leads of who were at the party. They expanded the investigation, found people who were not initially mandated by the White House, and went on and interview the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc., witnesses.

Nope, nope, nope. None of them could corroborate Ford's story. Frankly, at that point, after seven witnesses giving the similar answers to their FBI interviews, (i.e., "I wasn't there/I had never heard anything about it,") I think the FBI could reach a conclusion.

So. What am I supposed to think about Ford and Kavanaugh at this point? Am I suppose to insist that the FBI must continue the investigation *until they finally find the one person who can corroborate Ford's story? If the FBI found that one person who could finally corroborate her story, were they supposed to discount all the other eight witnesses and believe that ONE person?

Frankly, after seven "witnesses", most of whom were named by Ford herself, none of them could confirm or corroborate Ford's story, I think their consistent answers were more than enough to draw a conclusion.

As for Kavanaugh's drinking problem: I do not care. The investigation was supposed to be about sexual assaults. So when the FBI could not find any evidences or witnesses who could corroborate with Ford's (or Ramirez's) story, then they were supposed to look for something else to disqualify Kavanaugh? That seems to be "moving the goal post" and unfair.

And frankly, even if Kavanaugh was supposedly drunk and could not remember that he had tried to rape woman, why did not Smyth remember it? Or Keyser? Garrett? Gaudette? Are we supposed to find some reasons to show that they were drunk or lying, destroy their credibility, and disprove their interviews and testimonies as well? That does not seem right.

Edited October 4, 2018 by ktchong

[smjjames]

6 previous FBI investigations turned up nothing. If he is actually guilty, they did a piss poor job investigating him over the years.

 

Except that we don't know what they looked at or talked to during those other six background checks, and we'll never know because it's all classified (not to mention a ton of private details). I do agree though, if he really did commit something, then the FBI really dropped the ball somewhere.

 

Also, the Democrats are saying that there is evidence of inappropriate behavior in the previous six investigations (why they're bringing that up NOW rather than a whole bunch earlier in the proccess, I don't know), but again, the public can't see the stuff....

 

@ktchong: The FBI isn't supposed to reach a conclusion in the investigation as it's not a criminal investigation, all they're doing is gathering the facts. And yeah, it's hard to tell whether Kavanaugh actually did it or not as there is no conclusive evidence or not. The best way to find out is to do a full on investigation. Theres plenty of other reasons to oppose Kavanaugh like his judicial views for example.

 

Theres also the lack of allegations from later years. I know there was that rumored one from Colorado, but that one had no names, no return address, no number to call, no way to contact and follow up, plus it's easy enough to check Kavanaughs travel records whether he had been to Colorado at any point in that year.

Edited October 4, 2018 by smjjames

[ktchong]

 

6 previous FBI investigations turned up nothing. If he is actually guilty, they did a piss poor job investigating him over the years.

 

Except that we don't know what they looked at or talked to during those other six background checks, and we'll never know because it's all classified (not to mention a ton of private details). I do agree though, if he really did commit something, then the FBI really dropped the ball somewhere.

 

Also, the Democrats are saying that there is evidence of inappropriate behavior in the previous six investigations (why they're bringing that up NOW rather than a whole bunch earlier in the proccess, I don't know), but again, the public can't see the stuff....

 

@ktchong: The FBI isn't supposed to reach a conclusion in the investigation as it's not a criminal investigation, all they're doing is gathering the facts. And yeah, it's hard to tell whether Kavanaugh actually did it or not as there is no conclusive evidence or not. The best way to find out is to do a full on investigation. Theres plenty of other reasons to oppose Kavanaugh like his judicial views for example.

 

 

I know the FBI is not supposed to reach a conclusion in this case, but we can look at what the seven witnesses said in their interviews with the FBI and use reasons come to our own conclusions. 

 

Ford said Smyth and Keyser were at the party. Smyth and Keyser said they were not. So they were already the huge holes and problems in Ford's memory and/or testimony. So, if no one else really knew about the incident, if no one could confirm her allegation or corroborate her story, that means the whole thing basically becomes a "she says vs. he says" situation. And so we are back to square one:

 

Why should we believe her over him?

 

Because she seems more believable on the TV?

 

Does he still have the presumption of innocence?

 

Should we just assume he is guilty simply because a woman - or women - accuse him?

 

Should we always believe a woman over a man over an allegation of sexual assault?

 

Should we still always believe women after The Duke lacrosse and the "Rape on a Campus" story?

 

IMO, Democrats - particularly Dianne Feinstein - have really botched this whole thing.

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by ktchong

[smjjames]

 

 

6 previous FBI investigations turned up nothing. If he is actually guilty, they did a piss poor job investigating him over the years.

 

Except that we don't know what they looked at or talked to during those other six background checks, and we'll never know because it's all classified (not to mention a ton of private details). I do agree though, if he really did commit something, then the FBI really dropped the ball somewhere.

 

Also, the Democrats are saying that there is evidence of inappropriate behavior in the previous six investigations (why they're bringing that up NOW rather than a whole bunch earlier in the proccess, I don't know), but again, the public can't see the stuff....

 

@ktchong: The FBI isn't supposed to reach a conclusion in the investigation as it's not a criminal investigation, all they're doing is gathering the facts. And yeah, it's hard to tell whether Kavanaugh actually did it or not as there is no conclusive evidence or not. The best way to find out is to do a full on investigation. Theres plenty of other reasons to oppose Kavanaugh like his judicial views for example.

 

 

I know the FBI is not supposed to reach a conclusion in this case, but we can look at what the seven witnesses said in their interviews with the FBI and use reasons come to our own conclusions. 

 

Ford said Smyth and Keyser were at the party. Smyth and Keyser said they were not. So they were already the huge holes and problems in Ford's memory and/or testimony. So, if no one else really knew about the incident, if no one could confirm her allegation or corroborate her story, that means the whole thing basically becomes a "she says vs. he says" situation. And so we are back to square one:

 

Why should we believe her over him?

 

Because she seems more believable on the TV?

 

Does he still have the presumption of innocence?

 

Should we just assume he is guilty simply because a woman - or women - accuse him?

 

Should we always believe a woman over a man over an allegation of sexual assault?

 

Should we still always believe women after The Duke lacrosse and the "Rape on a Campus" story?

 

IMO, Democrats - particularly Dianne Feinstein - have really botched this whole thing.

 

 

 

It's also made a whole lot harder by the fact that it was like 35, 36 years ago, so, it's a heck of a lot harder to come by evidence.

 

As for the Democrats, yeah, Grassley said that there are ways to review stuff like the letter that Dr. Ford sent to Feinstein and protect Dr. Fords identity at the same time. So, it certainly could have been dealt with earlier.

 

Also the claim about the previous six FBI reports having indications of misconduct, but that's the first time I've heard that allegation from them, so, I'm like 'Why are you bringing that up NOW rather than earlier in the proccess?'

[injurai]

Why do people feel they need to come down on a side? We have a handful of loose incomplete fact patterns, where more accurate and reliable information will make a resolution come down in one direction or the other. The whole process and even more so the reporting, is marred by tertiary interests beyond the direct ruling of this case. People are turning themselves into chumps to prove themselves as politically engaged. Keep engaging the side farces bruh.

[Malcador]

 

What's the point in investigating if it isn't done properly?

Just checking a box so they can pretend they've done their due diligence when they vote for him as they were going to do anyway

Shame Flake warrants his name.

[ShadySands]

snip

I think you went in with too high of expectations if you were expecting someone to know about an incident that nobody talked about or may have even remembered. They were never going to find proof that he did it if two of the three people supposedly in the room where black out drunk. The best case scenario for the Democrats was to catch Kavanaugh in a lie like the yearbook stuff or Devil's Triangle or to establish a pattern of behavior that contradicted his statements.

 

This wasn't a trial, it was a job interview and therefore there there is no presumption of anything. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by ShadySands

[smjjames]

Why do people feel they need to come down on a side? We have a handful of loose incomplete fact patterns, where more accurate and reliable information will make a resolution come down in one direction or the other. The whole process and even more so the reporting, is marred by tertiary interests beyond the direct ruling of this case. People are turning themselves into chumps to prove themselves as politically engaged. Keep engaging the side farces bruh.

 

I already picked a side due to reasons unlreated to the accusations.

[ktchong]

If Dianne Feinstein had come forward with the accusation a month earlier, Republicans could have possibly replaced Kavanaugh with another nominee. IMO, Feinstein deliberately delayed coming forward because she wanted to delayed the confirmation until after the midterm, after Democrats would have possibly retake the Senate. It was a stupid decision that has backfired. 

 

I hate that old hag Feinstein. She is a   corporatist neoliberal shill who refused to step a aside and should have been primaried and replaced by Kevin de Leon. And now she has ****ed over Democrats for the next thirty to fifty years.  Now Kavanaugh will be confirmed and sit on the Supreme Court, and he will definitely hold a grudge against Democrats for her  shenanigan. This will hurt Democrats for any and every Supreme Court decision related to elections and politics for the next thirty to forty years - or even longer.

Edited October 4, 2018 by ktchong

[injurai]

 

Why do people feel they need to come down on a side? We have a handful of loose incomplete fact patterns, where more accurate and reliable information will make a resolution come down in one direction or the other. The whole process and even more so the reporting, is marred by tertiary interests beyond the direct ruling of this case. People are turning themselves into chumps to prove themselves as politically engaged. Keep engaging the side farces bruh.

 

I already picked a side due to reasons unlreated to the accusations.

 

 

Well, it's certainly the modern way.

[Hurlshort]

 

This wasn't a trial, it was a job interview and therefore there there is no presumption of anything. 

 

 

Yeah, that's what sticks with me. This job interview has gone terrible but they seem pretty dead set on giving him the job.

[smjjames]

@ktchong: The Democrats claiming inappropriate behavior in previous FBI investigations at the last minute when theres no evidence that they brought it up previously certainly doesn't help things either. I'm willing to give Feinstein the benefit of the doubt on what she did, but what they're doing now is pretty blatant.

[ktchong]

I read the news  reports of the FBI investigation.  I don't see a problem with the investigations.   The investigation was done as well as it could be.   Ford gave a bunch of names in her accusation and testimony.  The FBI went to look for those people and interview them.  None of them could corroborate Ford's story.  That was a pretty big hole and red flag here for her credibility and story.  And now Democrats say the FBI should have also looked into Kavanaugh's drinking??!?  So they could not get him on the sexual assault, and they want to move to goal post and nail him on something else?  That just does not sound right.

Edited October 4, 2018 by ktchong

[smjjames]

More specifically, they're trying to get at his credibility, not his drinking habits. Also, they didn't move goal posts, it's one that had all along that the GOP just didn't include in the FBI investigation.

 

It would certainly be better if they pinned him for lying on something more substantial.

[Malcador]

Should just dock him for being hysterical.

[Volourn]

"Yeah, that's what sticks with me. This job interview has gone terrible but they seem pretty dead set on giving him the job."

 

The senators decide if the interview went well or not through their votes. The problem here none of these interviewers;/voters give a crap about facts. The only thing that matters is what party he 'belongs to'. the Dems and Repubs already made up their minds. Outside of actual indisputable evidence one way or another  they were going to vote the way they were going t vote.

 

This likely comes down to 5  senators - 2 dems and 3 repubs - and likely down to the two woman republicans who haven't officially  in publicly stated  how theya re gonna vote. If both vote no he likely gets the job. If both say no, he's out.

 

 The job intervierw went very well which is likely when the dems pushed this last second hail mary accusation. if you think it was just a coincidence you are delusional.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

This wasn't a trial, it was a job interview and therefore there there is no presumption of anything.

 

 

Yeah, that's what sticks with me. This job interview has gone terrible but they seem pretty dead set on giving him the job.

Come on hurlie, didn't you repeatedly say you loved beer and start crying when you got interviewed to be a teacher?

[ktchong]

I am not sure if anyone else is paying attention to the new NAFTA called "USMCA", (i.e., the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement".)  I think China is finished.  USMCA will severely hurt China (and other "emerging economies") because of some surprising terms in the new agreement that was not in NAFTA:

* Canada and Mexico will NOT be able to unilaterally enter into any free trade agreement with China.  

* Canada and Mexico will NOT be able to import  parts from China, assemble those parts in Canada and Mexico, and then just repackage and sell the completed products as Canadian or Mexican goods to avoid US tariffs.

Links:

* https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/10/04/usmca-canada-china-free-trade_a_23551085/

* https://www.macleans.ca/politics/how-usmca-could-scuttle-free-trade-with-china/

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/trumps-new-north-american-trade-deal-is-also-aimed-at-a-bigger-target-china/2018/10/03/5290686c-c705-11e8-9c0f-2ffaf6d422aa_story.html

* https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/10/03/after-usmca-we-have-a-more-united-front-against-china-on-trade-says-max-baucus.html

The US must be working on similar trade agreements with the UK and EU nations.   Collectively, these new free trade agreements will exclude and isolate China - and they will be a deathblow to the Chinese economy.  With that consideration, IMO China has already lost the trade war.  I had previously thought that China could outlast the US in bilateral trade war - *if China took on only the US one on one.* However, China will not last when it is blockaded from a trade alliance of Western markets networked together by USMCA  and other similar free trade agreements, which I am certain are coming at China.  It is really bad news for China.

Also, Chinese will not be able to bypass/overcome a trade agreement like USMCA by moving/offshoring  assembly and productions to third countries like Indonesia and Vietnam.  Those third countries will also be excluded and restricted by this kind of trade agreement.  This could be also bad for Vietnam, Indonesia, and other "non market" nations that will be not be eligible to make any direct trade agreements with the US.  IMO, soon only the Western nations - and possibly Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan -  will be free-trading among themselves.  China and everyone else will be excluded.  This seems to be the beginning of a huge reorientation of the manufacturing hubs and production chains.

Edited October 5, 2018 by ktchong

[smjjames]

"Yeah, that's what sticks with me. This job interview has gone terrible but they seem pretty dead set on giving him the job."

 

The senators decide if the interview went well or not through their votes. The problem here none of these interviewers;/voters give a crap about facts. The only thing that matters is what party he 'belongs to'. the Dems and Repubs already made up their minds. Outside of actual indisputable evidence one way or another  they were going to vote the way they were going t vote.

 

This likely comes down to 5  senators - 2 dems and 3 repubs - and likely down to the two woman republicans who haven't officially  in publicly stated  how theya re gonna vote. If both vote no he likely gets the job. If both say no, he's out.

 

 The job intervierw went very well which is likely when the dems pushed this last second hail mary accusation. if you think it was just a coincidence you are delusional.

 

Not sure if you know already, but Sen. Heitkamp has already said she's voting no. So, thats 1 Democrat (Manchin) and 3 Republicans.

[smjjames]

And, of course there would be small random complications because Senators have a life outside of the Senate and some things just can't be rescheduled: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-oct-18/h_d7e23dcb22a99af660d59f851a43e531

[Volourn]

"Come on hurlie, didn't you repeatedly say you loved beer and start crying when you got interviewed to be a teacher?  "

 

Wa she also accused of being a rapist, had his name that he worked on for deaces dragged through the mud, and his children/family threatened with murder and rape? Nah. Didn't think so.  He likely had an interview that went over his qualifications and so the principle/hiring person got a feel for him and got a yay or nay (yay obviously since he's a teacher) and that was. So the same thing. I sure never had any interview like this. LMAO

[injurai]

 

[Orogun01]

Sometimes I don't know if I'm in the Funny thread or the Political one. I'm so glad I will die someday.

[smjjames]

Sen. Collins said she'll vote yes for the cloture* vote (which is in about 12 min from now) and announce her final vote later this afternoon.

*'cloture' is a procedural vote to end debate on something and move to the final vote, the Kavanaugh nomination in this case.