Starker on 20/9/2018 at 23:45
A headline like "FBI investigates Kav" would be entirely pointless, as the FBI background check is standard procedure for all Supreme Court nominees.
Besides, should you not find out the facts before you have a hearing?
jkcerda on 20/9/2018 at 23:46
the BG Check was already done. again this is nothing more than a delay tactic from the democrats.
(
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649853869/fact-check-can-the-senate-enlist-the-fbi-to-reopen-a-kavanaugh-investigation)
Quote:
Can the Senate Judiciary Committee enlist the FBI to investigate the claims of sexual assault brought by an accuser against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominee to the Supreme Court?
The short answer:
No.Quote:
What has the FBI done so far?
The FBI conducted a background check on Kavanaugh as part of the White House's review process of vetting him for the Supreme Court. Over the course of his career in the federal government, he's undergone a total of six background checks.
In July, Ford sent a letter to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in which she raised her allegations against Kavanaugh. Feinstein referred Ford's letter to the FBI on Sept. 12. The bureau then sent it to the White House to be added to Kavanaugh's background check file.
Quote:
So will Grassley ask Trump to bring the FBI back in now?
So far he hasn't.
Why not?
Grassley says the right way to investigate Ford's case is with a hearing or an interview in which she tells her story and Kavanaugh then has the ability to respond. The Judiciary Committee reportedly also has volunteered to send investigators to Palo Alto, Calif., where Ford lives, to talk with her there outside the view of TV cameras.
Ford is the one trying to delay things as well. nothing bus smoke & mirrors
Starker on 20/9/2018 at 23:54
But the White House can enlist the FBI, as part of the background check.
And this is nothing more than a rushing tactic from the Republicans. Reminds me of the tax bill that was so rushed the final version had hand-written additions hastily scribbled on the margins.
Also, of course Grassley wants a "he said, she said" type of situation. But is this really the right way to investigate this? Would the right way not be to attempt to find out the facts first?
jkcerda on 20/9/2018 at 23:59
pray/say/tell WHY should trump pander to the democrats who keep chanting "Fuck trump" every chance they get?
BOTH sides rush things that suit them , like the ACA " we have to pass it to see what's in it"...............
welcome to Murika, to the victors go the spoils..........
Starker on 21/9/2018 at 00:04
The contents of the ACA were publicly available and publicly debated. The "we have to pass it to see what's in it" is a partial quote, taken out of context: (
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/18/14957708/pelosi-pass-the-bill)
For context, here's Pelosi's quote in its entirety:
Quote:
You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
And here's her explaining it:
Quote:
(
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html)
“In the fall of the year,” Pelosi said today, “the outside groups...were saying ‘it's about abortion,' which it never was. ‘It's about ‘death panels,'' which it never was. ‘It's about a job-killer,' which it creates four million. ‘It's about increasing the deficit'; well, the main reason to pass it was to decrease the deficit.” Her contention was that the Senate “didn't have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.
“So, that's why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn't,” Pelosi continued. “It is none of these things. It's not going to be any of these things.”
jkcerda on 21/9/2018 at 00:05
the only ones who voted for it where democrats, I am fine if the only ones who confirm Kav are republicans, tit for tat................
Starker on 21/9/2018 at 00:12
That's just not true. Also, if you laud the Republicans' obstructionist tactics, then you have nothing to complain about Democrats.
Starker on 21/9/2018 at 00:28
Also, it's quite likely a few Democrats will vote for Kavanaugh. You think Republicans are the only ones friendly with big business?
Quote:
(
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/kavanaugh-confirmation-regulation-business-supreme-court/564968/)
For all the uncertainty about Brett Kavanaugh's views on abortion, the real key to his legal—and political—impact on the Supreme Court could eventually be his demonstrated resistance to the federal regulation of business.
Kavanaugh's repeated votes as an appellate-court judge to overturn federal regulatory actions point toward a Court even more adamantly tilted than it is today against environmental, consumer-protection, and financial-reform rules.
Renzatic on 21/9/2018 at 00:40
Quote Posted by jkcerda
I was not going for a "Ban" or meaning to really "piss" off anyone, but it does appear that particular word crossed the line so my apologies.....
The problem is that about antagonistic as hell. It really does seem you're here to make sure everyone who crosses your path doesn't like you.
