WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:37 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15717
Now that the FBI has released the results of the investigation that talked to only the people that Grassley and Trump pre-approved and not to Dr. Ford and dozens of others who have come forward in the last week and tried to contact the FBI, it comes down to Jeff Flake and what he wants to do. There is, however, a procedural vote coming up tomorrow that would give Flake (and Collins and Murkowski) an out without having to vote against Kavanaugh directly. McConnell has moved for cloture, which will cut off debate and lead to a final vote, probably on Saturday. But he needs 50 votes (plus Pence) for cloture. If Flake and the others want, they can voice their displeasure with the way the investigation was conducted and the treatment of Dr. Ford and insist that the FBI do a further dig. If not, then "debate" continues and there's no vote on the nomination until Trump either pulls it or a new Senate convenes in January.

Guessing what Flake will do is tricky. Unlike the other Senators involved (including Joe Manchin), he doesn't have to worry about facing the voters in a month or two years, but he may see himself as an anti-Trump presidential candidate in 2020.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4404
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
Now that the FBI has released the results of the investigation that talked to only the people that Grassley and Trump pre-approved and not to Dr. Ford and dozens of others who have come forward in the last week and tried to contact the FBI, it comes down to Jeff Flake and what he wants to do. There is, however, a procedural vote coming up tomorrow that would give Flake (and Collins and Murkowski) an out without having to vote against Kavanaugh directly. McConnell has moved for cloture, which will cut off debate and lead to a final vote, probably on Saturday. But he needs 50 votes (plus Pence) for cloture. If Flake and the others want, they can voice their displeasure with the way the investigation was conducted and the treatment of Dr. Ford and insist that the FBI do a further dig. If not, then "debate" continues and there's no vote on the nomination until Trump either pulls it or a new Senate convenes in January.

Guessing what Flake will do is tricky. Unlike the other Senators involved (including Joe Manchin), he doesn't have to worry about facing the voters in a month or two years, but he may see himself as an anti-Trump presidential candidate in 2020.


There is nothing that can be done, short of shooting Judge Kavanaugh, that will satisfy democrats and trump haters. Even that will not suffice, since they will want others to be shot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17599
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Now that the FBI has released the results of the investigation that talked to only the people that Grassley and Trump pre-approved and not to Dr. Ford and dozens of others who have come forward in the last week and tried to contact the FBI, it comes down to Jeff Flake and what he wants to do. There is, however, a procedural vote coming up tomorrow that would give Flake (and Collins and Murkowski) an out without having to vote against Kavanaugh directly. McConnell has moved for cloture, which will cut off debate and lead to a final vote, probably on Saturday. But he needs 50 votes (plus Pence) for cloture. If Flake and the others want, they can voice their displeasure with the way the investigation was conducted and the treatment of Dr. Ford and insist that the FBI do a further dig. If not, then "debate" continues and there's no vote on the nomination until Trump either pulls it or a new Senate convenes in January.

Guessing what Flake will do is tricky. Unlike the other Senators involved (including Joe Manchin), he doesn't have to worry about facing the voters in a month or two years, but he may see himself as an anti-Trump presidential candidate in 2020.


There is nothing that can be done, short of shooting Judge Kavanaugh, that will satisfy democrats and trump haters. Even that will not suffice, since they will want others to be shot.
Really? Whom did the FBI talk to? How did they select whom to interview? What leads did they follow? What evidence did they hear that might have led them to new leads?

If you don't know the answer to these questions (and you don't), how can you know that the investigation was sufficient to get to the truth? Your standard should be whether the House's inevitable investigation will uncover facts that the FBI didn't try to find. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15717
Bob78164 wrote:
Whom did the FBI talk to? How did they select whom to interview? What leads did they follow? What evidence did they hear that might have led them to new leads?

If you don't know the answer to these questions (and you don't), how can you know that the investigation was sufficient to get to the truth? Your standard should be whether the House's inevitable investigation will uncover facts that the FBI didn't try to find. --Bob


Well, among the people the FBI didn't talk to are Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford, and the numerous witnesses mentioned by Ramirez and Dr. Ford. Nor did they request and review Dr. Ford's therapy notes.

This is the appearance of an investigation to give Jeff Flake and Susan Collins something to feel good about.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4404
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
Now that the FBI has released the results of the investigation that talked to only the people that Grassley and Trump pre-approved and not to Dr. Ford and dozens of others who have come forward in the last week and tried to contact the FBI, it comes down to Jeff Flake and what he wants to do. There is, however, a procedural vote coming up tomorrow that would give Flake (and Collins and Murkowski) an out without having to vote against Kavanaugh directly. McConnell has moved for cloture, which will cut off debate and lead to a final vote, probably on Saturday. But he needs 50 votes (plus Pence) for cloture. If Flake and the others want, they can voice their displeasure with the way the investigation was conducted and the treatment of Dr. Ford and insist that the FBI do a further dig. If not, then "debate" continues and there's no vote on the nomination until Trump either pulls it or a new Senate convenes in January.

Guessing what Flake will do is tricky. Unlike the other Senators involved (including Joe Manchin), he doesn't have to worry about facing the voters in a month or two years, but he may see himself as an anti-Trump presidential candidate in 2020.


There is nothing that can be done, short of shooting Judge Kavanaugh, that will satisfy democrats and trump haters. Even that will not suffice, since they will want others to be shot.
Really? Whom did the FBI talk to? How did they select whom to interview? What leads did they follow? What evidence did they hear that might have led them to new leads?

If you don't know the answer to these questions (and you don't), how can you know that the investigation was sufficient to get to the truth? Your standard should be whether the House's inevitable investigation will uncover facts that the FBI didn't try to find. --Bob


This was a serious and credible investigation, and deserves to be believed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15717
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
This was a serious and credible investigation, and deserves to be believed.


If you could only find a good funny man to team up with, you'd make a great straight man.


_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6439
Location: Montana
I can only wonder that the FBI didn't immediately contact sss and the bobs so they could be sure and get their expert input on what constitutes an adequate investigation. :roll:

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
Dog's Best Friend
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 9485
tlynn78 wrote:
I can only wonder that the FBI didn't immediately contact sss and the bobs so they could be sure and get their expert input on what constitutes an adequate investigation. :roll:


I think we should demand an FBI investigation of the FBI investigation!

Oh, wait....

_________________
Now generating the White Hot Glare of Righteousness on behalf of BBs everywhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4404
Location: Olympia, Washington
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
This was a serious and credible investigation, and deserves to be believed.


If you could only find a good funny man to team up with, you'd make a great straight man.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15717
Heidi Heitkamp is a NO on Kavanaugh, leaving only Joe Manchin officially undecided among Democrats. Heitkamp is the most endangered Democratic incumbent, with a couple of recent polls showing her ten points down. Manchin has been consistently ahead in recent polls.

http://www.wday.com/news/government-and ... oning-wday

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 22091
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
I've got a lot of non-political crap going on in my life right now so haven't completely kept up with things, but doesn't the Judiciary Committee have to vote to pass things on to the whole Senate first? If Flake and the Democrats vote no, doesn't that stop it?

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4404
Location: Olympia, Washington
Bob Juch wrote:
I've got a lot of non-political crap going on in my life right now so haven't completely kept up with things, but doesn't the Judiciary Committee have to vote to pass things on to the whole Senate first? If Flake and the Democrats vote no, doesn't that stop it?

They already did. Flake put in a non-binding provision that he would vote NO on the floor unless there was an investigation that was limited in scope that would last no longer than a week, which was agreed to by the other dems on the Committee led by Combs and was verified by Feinstein.
As I predicted, and no one else would wager against it, from that point on the democrats broke their agreement, and every democrat had a complaint about everything. aSSShole and bob-tel have gotten their batphone calls and deluged the bored this morning.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15717
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Flake put in a non-binding provision that he would vote NO on the floor unless there was an investigation that was limited in scope that would last no longer than a week,


Limited in scope is one thing. Not talking to Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford or any on the witnesses named by Ford or Ramirez is another. It's called S-H-A-M.

Bob and I aren't the only ones who think this way. So do over 1700 law professors, many of whom initially supported Kavanaugh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... 39f54daa4c

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6439
Location: Montana
Since the FBI has access to I -don't-know-how-many hours of testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford, why would they need to re-interview the two of them? They also had statements from those Ford originally named as 'witnesses' including a long time close friend, all of whom have gone on record vis a vis the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault. Again, why re-interview? The conclusion isn't what you wanted, ergo, the investigation is flawed. :roll:
Can we get a re-do on Hilz, now that most of the actors in that farce have been removed?

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:16 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9540
Location: Location.Location.Location
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Flake put in a non-binding provision that he would vote NO on the floor unless there was an investigation that was limited in scope that would last no longer than a week,


Limited in scope is one thing. Not talking to Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford or any on the witnesses named by Ford or Ramirez is another. It's called S-H-A-M.

Bob and I aren't the only ones who think this way. So do over 1700 law professors, many of whom initially supported Kavanaugh.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/educatio ... 39f54daa4c


Out of approximately 16,000 plus law teacher sorts according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. I may be underwhelmed.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:19 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17599
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
Since the FBI has access to I -don't-know-how-many hours of testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford, why would they need to re-interview the two of them? They also had statements from those Ford originally named as 'witnesses' including a long time close friend, all of whom have gone on record vis a vis the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault. Again, why re-interview? The conclusion isn't what you wanted, ergo, the investigation is flawed. :roll:
Can we get a re-do on Hilz, now that most of the actors in that farce have been removed?
Really? Who was interviewed? What did they say? What leads did they indicate that were or weren't followed up upon?

You don't know the answer to these questions and neither do I. All we know is that Mitch McConnell doesn't want the public to know the answers to these questions. That's not good enough for me. It may be good enough for the Republican base, but I don't think it's good enough for most of the American people.

Eventually we will learn what Congressional Republicans have been able to use their majorities to hide. And when that day comes to pass, I expect the consequences to be epic. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4404
Location: Olympia, Washington
tlynn78 wrote:
Since the FBI has access to I -don't-know-how-many hours of testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford, why would they need to re-interview the two of them? They also had statements from those Ford originally named as 'witnesses' including a long time close friend, all of whom have gone on record vis a vis the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault. Again, why re-interview? The conclusion isn't what you wanted, ergo, the investigation is flawed. :roll:
Can we get a re-do on Hilz, now that most of the actors in that farce have been removed?


Vote for the people that bob-tel and aSSShole supports, and you will get investigations of investigations of investigations, and every republican will be revealed for the serial murderer, sex-crazed maniac, sociopath and mafia boss that they really are. bob-tel will vow to do everything in his power to make sure it happens. trump will be forced to walk the plank. And Jon Ossoff will be appointed Minister of the Good and Holy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15717
tlynn78 wrote:
Since the FBI has access to I -don't-know-how-many hours of testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford, why would they need to re-interview the two of them?


Gee, I don't know, maybe because they are trained interrogators who know how to follow up on lines of questioning and get around evasive non-answers. I guess this means they don't need to question any potential witnesses to any crime as long as that witness had already made a statement about the crime.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15717
Beebs52 wrote:
Out of approximately 16,000 plus law teacher sorts according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. I may be underwhelmed.


Ten percent of the nation's law professors take a public stance on Kavanaugh's confirmation within a week of his testimony. Yes, I would say that's an impressive statistic.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 15717
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
And Jon Ossoff will be appointed Minister of the Good and Holy.


A sure sign that Flock has no way to respond to a thread is when he trots out his Jon Ossoff shtick for the 100th unfunny time.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6439
Location: Montana
silverscreenselect wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Since the FBI has access to I -don't-know-how-many hours of testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford, why would they need to re-interview the two of them?


Gee, I don't know, maybe because they are trained interrogators who know how to follow up on lines of questioning and get around evasive non-answers. I guess this means they don't need to question any potential witnesses to any crime as long as that witness had already made a statement about the crime.


Clearly they don't think so. Maybe you could advise them.

_________________
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself. And clowns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:54 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17599
Location: By the phone
tlynn78 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Since the FBI has access to I -don't-know-how-many hours of testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford, why would they need to re-interview the two of them?


Gee, I don't know, maybe because they are trained interrogators who know how to follow up on lines of questioning and get around evasive non-answers. I guess this means they don't need to question any potential witnesses to any crime as long as that witness had already made a statement about the crime.


Clearly they don't think so. Maybe you could advise them.
All we know is that the White House didn't want it to happen. We have no idea what the FBI would have done with the shackles off. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9540
Location: Location.Location.Location
silverscreenselect wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
Out of approximately 16,000 plus law teacher sorts according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. I may be underwhelmed.


Ten percent of the nation's law professors take a public stance on Kavanaugh's confirmation within a week of his testimony. Yes, I would say that's an impressive statistic.


Good for you.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:58 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 9540
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
Since the FBI has access to I -don't-know-how-many hours of testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford, why would they need to re-interview the two of them? They also had statements from those Ford originally named as 'witnesses' including a long time close friend, all of whom have gone on record vis a vis the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault. Again, why re-interview? The conclusion isn't what you wanted, ergo, the investigation is flawed. :roll:
Can we get a re-do on Hilz, now that most of the actors in that farce have been removed?
Really? Who was interviewed? What did they say? What leads did they indicate that were or weren't followed up upon?

You don't know the answer to these questions and neither do I. All we know is that Mitch McConnell doesn't want the public to know the answers to these questions. That's not good enough for me. It may be good enough for the Republican base, but I don't think it's good enough for most of the American people.

Eventually we will learn what Congressional Republicans have been able to use their majorities to hide. And when that day comes to pass, I expect the consequences to be epic. --Bob


It's past procedure not to release investigation, unless Trump wants to.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17599
Location: By the phone
So has a retired Justice. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.