Politics Thread

[Juice]

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

he Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/u...d-testify.html

When the NY Times won't run with the story, you know it's bullshit.

[scoscox]

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

Yikes. We have a democratic activist with a story that all of her named witnesses deny and she can’t even clearly remember if it was this guy or not.

[GoMuskies]

Yikes. We have a democratic activist with a story that all of her named witnesses deny and she can’t even clearly remember if it was this guy or not.

Let's spend the next 2 years investigating it.

[Caf]

I still don't see the thought process behind not investigating these. Both accusers are on really shaky ground, so it seems quite likely that an investigation would favor Kavanaugh's story. Get it done and if they can't prove an incident, he'll get the votes. If they find something credible, then you dodged the bullet of it coming out after the fact or right before a vote.

The risks of not investigating are huge. There is definitely a real chance they don't get the votes no matter how well the hearings go. The Dems will trot this out in every single midterm race at a time where Trump's approval rating is at 38%. If they make a real effort to get to the bottom of this, they'll at least have a good faith rebuttal to it. Of course the ultimate risk is that the assumption of innocence by the chamber is misplaced.

[scoscox]

I agree with the sentiment, but realistically how do you investigate something that no witnesses can corroborate and the accusers themselves don’t have a clear recollection of key details like time, place, or in this case, the identity of the accused?

[Caf]

I agree with the sentiment, but realistically how do you investigate something that no witnesses can corroborate and the accusers themselves don’t have a clear recollection of key details like time, place, or in this case, the identity of the accused?

You look for witnesses and if you don't find any that's pretty much it.

Add this to the list of things I don't understand. Why does everyone keep saying the FBI would have to prove a negative? When has this every been the case? They'd try to find out if there was a crime. If they don't find anything then they just say so.

[Pete Delkus]

You look for witnesses and if you don't find any that's pretty much it.

Add this to the list of things I don't understand. Why does everyone keep saying the FBI would have to prove a negative? When has this every been the case? They'd try to find out if there was a crime. If they don't find anything then they just say so.

If you don't acknowledge the time aspect of both WHEN these claims are being made and HOW it affects the forthcoming steps, then the notion " just investigate" argument is null.

An investigation would press the potential voting time period to after the elections, and thus cause a different voting outcome...even if nothing is discovered.

Political chess is unsavory, to say the least...both sides play it...it just gets slimier & more hypocritical as we get more divided.

[Caf]

If you don't acknowledge the time aspect of both WHEN these claims are being made and HOW it affects the forthcoming steps, then the notion " just investigate" argument is null.

An investigation would press the potential voting time period to after the elections, and thus cause a different voting outcome...even if nothing is discovered.

Political chess is unsavory, to say the least...both sides play it...it just gets slimier & more hypocritical as we get more divided.

I don't disagree with any of this. I just think they're really rolling the dice on this. They could wind up sacrificing the House for a Supreme Court Justice who may have in fact done all of these things. The odds are low but the risk is enormous.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I don't disagree with any of this. I just think they're really rolling the dice on this. They could wind up sacrificing the House for a Supreme Court Justice who may have in fact done all of these things. The odds are low but the risk is enormous.

This delay is basically Merrick Garland with a reason. The reason isn't ironclad for sure and tenuous, but the idea is the same.

[bjf123]

An investigation would press the potential voting time period to after the elections, and thus cause a different voting outcome...even if nothing is discovered.

That’s all the Democrats really care about. Otherwise, this information would have come out back when Feinstein first got the letter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk