Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:00 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90350 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2137, 2138, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2142, 2143 ... 2259  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21776
Kiwias wrote:
Talking about pissing, seems these are popping up in various locations in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Image


Set it on fire to stop people peeing on him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7302
happyhooker wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.

Why not?

What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview. You don't need the same levels of proof to bar you from getting employed as you do for going to gaol


What level of proof do you think? Because in this case we have an allegation with absolutely zero corroborating proof. Is that the right level or should it be higher? Or lower?

And if there needs to be an investigation how intensive should it be if a) there's no immediate or obvious corroborating evidence, b) on a cursory examination there's no corroborating evidence, c) after an initial 'investigation' in which the most proximal witnesses provide no corroborating evidence? Should they keep investigating?


Last edited by Santa on Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:37 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.

Why not?

What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview. You don't need the same levels of proof to bar you from getting employed as you do for going to gaol


What level of proof do you think? Because in this case we have an allegation with absolutely zero corroborating proof. Is that the right level or should it be high? Or lower?

And if there needs to be an investigation how intensive should it be if a) there's no immediate or obvious corroborating evidence, b) on a cursory examination there's no corroborating evidence, c) after an initial 'investigation' in which the most proximal witnesses provide no corroborating evidence? Should they keep investigating?


At least keep investigating to the point of interviewing the people directly involved? That would be considered standard, yes. Follow up interviews as required? Yes.
But that's only if you want a genuine attempt to investigate the issue correctly.

If all you want is political window dressing to provide the illusion of due diligence so as to assuage the conscience of the more moderate people in your political organization, then no.

It all depends on deeply invested you are in your political outlook and how much you're prepared to ignore to achieve it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.

Why not?

What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview. You don't need the same levels of proof to bar you from getting employed as you do for going to gaol


What level of proof do you think? Because in this case we have an allegation with absolutely zero corroborating proof. Is that the right level or should it be high? Or lower?

And if there needs to be an investigation how intensive should it be if a) there's no immediate or obvious corroborating evidence, b) on a cursory examination there's no corroborating evidence, c) after an initial 'investigation' in which the most proximal witnesses provide no corroborating evidence? Should they keep investigating?


At least keep investigating to the point of interviewing the people directly involved? That would be considered standard, yes. Follow up interviews as required? Yes.
But that's only if you want a genuine attempt to investigate the issue correctly.

If all you want is political window dressing to provide the illusion of due diligence so as to assuage the conscience of the more moderate people in your political organization, then no.

It all depends on deeply invested you are in your political outlook and how much you're prepared to ignore to achieve it.


And we're off... Back to your hobby horse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7302
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:43 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:

And we're off... Back to your hobby horse.


Well, he was asking actual questions, I'm simply answering them for him. Take it up with your cheerleader if you want to move on, it's a dead topic now I quite agree, and there's not much to be gained from rehashing the same topics other than clear up a little confusion for Santa.

At least nobody is threatening to throw Kavanaugh in the Gulag or chop his head off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:45 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Turbogoat wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:

And we're off... Back to your hobby horse.


Well, he was asking actual questions, I'm simply answering them for him. Take it up with your cheerleader if you want to move on, it's a dead topic now I quite agree, and there's not much to be gained from rehashing the same topics other than clear up a little confusion for Santa.

At least nobody is threatening to throw Kavanaugh in the Gulag or chop his head off.


Apart from that Georgetown u professor who wanted to castrate him and roast his testicles over a wicca camp fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7302
I mean I suppose it's possible that Ford has a cumstained bathing suit sitting in her draw and she's just waiting for someone to ask her about it but nobody will so she can't bring it into evidence. I suppose that's possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:52 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:

And we're off... Back to your hobby horse.


Well, he was asking actual questions, I'm simply answering them for him. Take it up with your cheerleader if you want to move on, it's a dead topic now I quite agree, and there's not much to be gained from rehashing the same topics other than clear up a little confusion for Santa.

At least nobody is threatening to throw Kavanaugh in the Gulag or chop his head off.


Apart from that Georgetown u professor who wanted to castrate him and roast his testicles over a wicca camp fire.


I was referring to PR, not the rantings of people on twitter that you're poring over looking for things to be outraged about. There are plenty of people on both sides of the issue covering themselves in that kind of glory out on the twitterverse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:53 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
I mean I suppose it's possible that Ford has a cumstained bathing suit sitting in her draw and she's just waiting for someone to ask her about it but nobody will so she can't bring it into evidence. I suppose that's possible.


Does taking things to a ridiculous extreme help rationalize your more petulant arguments?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:55 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Demanding a 15yr old girl produce more substantial evidence before bothering with her allegations may well be the reason women wait for 35 years before coming forward about being sexually assaulted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7302
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
I mean I suppose it's possible that Ford has a cumstained bathing suit sitting in her draw and she's just waiting for someone to ask her about it but nobody will so she can't bring it into evidence. I suppose that's possible.


Does taking things to a ridiculous extreme help rationalize your more petulant arguments?


It's the best rhetorical trick available for dealing with you guys who are, let's face it, as they said in ancient Greece a little bit more mythos than logos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Turbogoat wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Demanding a 15yr old girl produce more substantial evidence before bothering with her allegations may well be the reason women wait for 35 years before coming forward about being sexually assaulted.


There you go again, flying off to the clouds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:58 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.



It's quite interesting to see how people react to having a well rehearsed story being questioned. A good, experienced investigator can get a lot more out of someone than a politician grandstanding for the cameras.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.


That's not impossible. I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.



It's quite interesting to see how people react to having a well rehearsed story being questioned. A good, experienced investigator can get a lot more out of someone than a politician grandstanding for the cameras.


You mean could get more 'non-evidence' out of her?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:01 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
I mean I suppose it's possible that Ford has a cumstained bathing suit sitting in her draw and she's just waiting for someone to ask her about it but nobody will so she can't bring it into evidence. I suppose that's possible.


Does taking things to a ridiculous extreme help rationalize your more petulant arguments?


It's the best rhetorical trick available for dealing with you guys who are, let's face it, as they said in ancient Greece a little bit more mythos than logos.


It demonstrates quite nicely how you and your cheerleader are unable to actually respond to what has been posted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21776
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:04 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Seneca of the Night wrote:
You mean could get more 'non-evidence' out of her?


That's almost on the right track. She may trip herself up, and actually exonerate Kavanaugh much more likely than she would provide the killer detail that leads to him being charged and convicted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:07 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Ted. wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).


It's why going back to the 60 vote majority for SCOTUS confirmations might actually be a good thing. Instead of decisions being made strictly along party lines, that allows them to go completely off the rails (yes, I know 2 senators crossed the floor), they'd have to be a lot more bi-partisan, both the nominations and the proceedings.
It'd take the toxic binary politics down a notch, you'd hope.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34912
Ted. wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).


I think the attempt to make this not requiring of criminal proof was the other two accusations, to look like a pattern. But they so clearly didn't hold water that the opposite occured: the initial more plausible claim now looks to many like part of a pattern by the Democrats.

Nonetheless, as a standard rule for a society you can't just willy nilly accuse someone of stealing the money out of the social committee jar and cost them a job. That would not be good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16488
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.

To be honest, I'm a little reluctant to call people idiots here, not least because I don't regard myself as particularly intelligent, but that conclusion is pretty well inescapable.

I suppose if you continue to present President Trump as some kind 4D chess playing mastermind in the face of mounting evidence that he is a celebrity crook with a mind too weak to comprehend a lot of what is going on around him, then I suppose it's inevitable that your intellectual credibility is going to take a hit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16488
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.

No, but the inconsistencies that ZT claims are in her testimony could be examined.

And the same for Kavanaugh.

One can easily see why this wasn't allowed to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32332
Ted. wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).



I agree on the bolded. Yet politics ARE the management of a society/group of societies - a rule set that is very dynamic and WILL change.
Judiciary must be on their toes and keep that in account. As lawmakers must be aware of legal constraints on their newest fandangos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1754
Santa wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:

Yes, it's a 'fit and proper person' investigation rather than a full on criminal investigation. Which begs the question why people expect a level of evidence commensurate with a criminal trial? Proof of criminality is simply not necessary to make a finding on someone's propriety for office.


I can scarcely believe you've posted that.

Why not?

What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview. You don't need the same levels of proof to bar you from getting employed as you do for going to gaol


What level of proof do you think? Because in this case we have an allegation with absolutely zero corroborating proof. Is that the right level or should it be higher? Or lower?

And if there needs to be an investigation how intensive should it be if a) there's no immediate or obvious corroborating evidence, b) on a cursory examination there's no corroborating evidence, c) after an initial 'investigation' in which the most proximal witnesses provide no corroborating evidence? Should they keep investigating?


Was this copied and pasted from a PR consultant's pitch to the Catholic Church?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7302
Rinkals wrote:
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that the the principals have already been interviewed in excruciating detail and you would not expect them to add any additional information of significance without somehow undermining their previous testimony.

Nobody who advocates for those kinds of interviews has actually made a case for doing them other than saying they should be done. That's not a case.


Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.

No, but the inconsistencies that ZT claims are in her testimony could be examined.

And the same for Kavanaugh.

One can easily see why this wasn't allowed to happen.


They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7302
Quote:
FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate on Wednesday that the White House put limits on the re-opened investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but the law enforcement chief insisted that the process used was a typical one.

"Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope and that ... is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back a long ways," Wray said under questioning by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on global security threats.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... mit-888667


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16488
Santa wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Santa wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Turbogoat wrote:
Been over this already as well.
Only an idiot would consider that televised committee grandstanding to be a sufficient 'investigation' regardless of what side of the political fence they're on.


It was sufficient in that it's all they could do given her evidence (none).

Be interesting to see what Colombo could do traipsing around Maryland in his dirty mac tricking a bunch of Chads into giving the game away I suppose. But I think he'd be struggling.


Maybe people think she would give different evidence if questioned by the FBI instead of the committee. If she did that would be weird.

No, but the inconsistencies that ZT claims are in her testimony could be examined.

And the same for Kavanaugh.

One can easily see why this wasn't allowed to happen.


They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.

Very odd response, but entirely expected.

Seriously? you think that the notes taken by a therapist on the ordeal of a sexual violence survivor should be opened up for the gratification of the public? Personally, I can see every reason why she wouldn't want that, even if you can't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32332
Are the anti-Trumpers on here trying to suggest that the FBI is partisan, less than totally independent, in this Kavanaugh matter ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:51 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25079
Location: Middle East
Santa wrote:
Quote:
FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate on Wednesday that the White House put limits on the re-opened investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but the law enforcement chief insisted that the process used was a typical one.

"Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope and that ... is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back a long ways," Wray said under questioning by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on global security threats.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... mit-888667


Burying the lead just a tad.

Headline:
FBI's Wray confirms White House limited Kavanaugh probe


Quote:
later adding that the inquiry was "very specific in scope—limited in scope."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7302
Rinkals wrote:
Santa wrote:

They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.

Very odd response, but entirely expected.

Seriously? you think that the notes taken by a therapist on the ordeal of a sexual violence survivor should be opened up for the gratification of the public? Personally, I can see every reason why she wouldn't want that, even if you can't.


Yes. Yes I do think they should be opened up to the general public, as I clearly stated above.

But failing that ideal situation perhaps they could be turned over for private examination by the body that is investigating the allegations. This seems a sensible compromise from my original and quite clear proposal to publicise the records because the allegator has cited them as corroborating evidence.

Alternatively we could go full #metoo and a) believe the initial allegation because she made it and she's a woman, and b) believe her summary of the independent associated evidence because she's a woman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32332
Santa wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Santa wrote:

They are largely inconsistencies between her testimony and previous claims she has made, between different claims she has made outside her testimony, or between her testimony and other evidence that she has refused to provide (e.g. the original therapist notes).

Really you should have a basic understanding of the situation before you go wailing in.

Very odd response, but entirely expected.

Seriously? you think that the notes taken by a therapist on the ordeal of a sexual violence survivor should be opened up for the gratification of the public? Personally, I can see every reason why she wouldn't want that, even if you can't.


Yes. Yes I do think they should be opened up to the general public, as I clearly stated above.

But failing that ideal situation perhaps they could be turned over for private examination by the body that is investigating the allegations. This seems a sensible compromise from my original and quite clear proposal to publicise the records because the allegator has cited them as corroborating evidence.

Alternatively we could go full #metoo and a) believe the initial allegation because she made it and she's a woman, and b) believe her summary of the independent associated evidence because she's a woman.


The complainant has opened up on lots of personal stuff, to garner sympathy I guess. And she is an expert on railroading systems, has already written on it. Do not know what her "medical" notes might suggest, I would not trust them ...
However, her general testimony is also sadly lacking in detail, accuracy and conviction. Cannot see what she can add if not solid evidence (except her "word", which I find very insufficient) .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7373
Quote:
What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview.
#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21776
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Quote:

What's your problem then? Come on, out with it, and none of your usually pissing around either.

Edit: And wot HH said, but I can scarcely believe that had to be spelt out for you.


I've read what you and hh have written several times and concluded I must be missing something. You cant just accuse someone of a criminal act without necessary evidence and cost them a job. Imagine what kind of world that would be - maybe we are finding out. I guess I've misunderstood what you're saying.


It's fitness and propriety to hold the post. That doesn't just stop at criminal accusations. Nor am I saying that necessarily forfeits the Kav as a fit candidate for the job. It's merely an observation for those that are wetting their knickers of criminal level proof. It is not necessary.

It's part and parcel of a flawed system, IMO. Having a politicised judiciary is very risky from the POV that the judiciary should never be beholding to the lawmakers (who are beholding to lobby groups and vested interests). Lawmakers should not be interpreting the law and the judiciary should not be interpreting the political winds (societies, yes).


I think the attempt to make this not requiring of criminal proof was the other two accusations, to look like a pattern. But they so clearly didn't hold water that the opposite occured: the initial more plausible claim now looks to many like part of a pattern by the Democrats.

Nonetheless, as a standard rule for a society you can't just willy nilly accuse someone of stealing the money out of the social committee jar and cost them a job. That would not be good.


Which then behoves a full investigation is carried out by professional investigators. One way or another the bottom of it must be got to and the appropriate response or actions taken. Either way, the right outcome will occur most times. The way this has been conducted does nothing to either exonerate the Kav and punish a false accuser, or alternatively prevent an unfit person from being appointed to an extremely powerful and important office, give justice to a victim and relieve the American people of a despicable fraud.

What has transpired is akin to an unruly circus (with the bearded lady, dwarf tossing, monkeys, an elephant and clowns all on display, sans the decorous ringmaster).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7373
Quote:
It's quite interesting to see how people react to having a well rehearsed story being questioned. A good, experienced investigator can get a lot more out of someone than a politician grandstanding for the cameras.


You're just trolling now. For weeks the narrative was "Ford is a victim who shouldn't be interogated by old white men". Now it's, "Why, Oh Why, is the GOP preventing the FBI from waterboarding her. All we want is the truth".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19932
zzzz wrote:
Quote:
What's happened recently has been basically a glorified job interview.
#

Of all the hot takes floating around about Kav, this is one of the most excruciatingly stupid.

It's clearly not a f*ckin job interview. It's the excercise of of one of the most important political rights that comes with winning a general election. Actually, its probably the most important political consequence of a US election. Millions of people held their noses and voted for Trump purely so the GOP could make this appointment. Equally, millions of people have completely lost their shit about the fact the GOP will make this appointment.

And we get called hysterical :uhoh:

I understand that it's a political right, although it doesn't automatically come with winning an election of course

However, once the nomination has been made, the senate process looks into the fitness of the nominee for the position, which is effectively a glorified job interview.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90350 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2137, 2138, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2142, 2143 ... 2259  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Jay Cee Gee, Tehui, Turbogoat, UncleFB, Zico and 1 guest


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group