@Kronykal I imagine your perspective is yours and if that ruffles your feathers then I can imagine that it is baiting you and makes you feel baited. However, that is not how you baited or what you said. You came in and said that he did nothing wrong and should be put in immediately. As a former 15 year old that was pushed into a car after a football game and attacked and had to fight but didn't report, I needed to know your POV so I could filter. Others might not have. ..... @code

@Stace @code

I still believe he did nothing wrong and they should have the vote today. Post haste.

@Kronykal I recommend (unless you are intentionally baiting again) that you change this to state that you do not believe that these accusations are true. You sound to me like you are intentionally being inflammatory when you repeat the very thing I suggested you could solve. I know you're unsufferable. Maybe you're not as good as I give credit for, though I hope not. Also, as a fellow citizen, I prefer that investigations be done. There are familiar tales being told. My perspective. @code

Well, fine. If we are going to have this one out.

As a staunch Republican who steadfastly holds true to the US political system and upholds the Constitution (assumptions, correct me otherwise), you cannot in good faith think that appointment to one of the highest seats in the land can be done because a group of people "believe" an accusation of crime not to be true.

It must be found beyond reasonable doubt not to have occurred.

Otherwise your legal system can be corrupted.

@Kronykal @Stace

@code @Stace

I laid out, in detail, why there’s plenty of doubt this ever occurred. I encourage you to go read it. I’m not repeating myself for you.

@Kronykal I read your posts. I didn't ask you to and wouldn't. @code

@Kronykal @Stace I did, and that's great, but I'm no better than any other in a court of public opinion - hence why I offered none on the matter. Let the courts decide. It is what they are there for.

@code @Stace

Ok. That’s you. You do you. When I see a wall of public opinion all supporting one side and I don’t agree with it, I’m going to speak up. Not doing so doesn’t help those people. Everyone should be challenged on what they think now and then. An echo chamber is not helpful for anyone.

@Kronykal @Stace Of course. I agree entirely.

@code @Kronykal @Stace
While I agree that there should be an investigation and consideration of the accusations, I have to point out that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the prosecution's job, not the defendant's.

Generally, I think it's possible Dr Ford and others are lying. I don't think that's the case, but it is at least possible. I hope people on the other side appreciate the possibility that she's not lying. If it is even possible, should you dismiss it prima facie?

@britt
Not meaning to butt in here. And I'm not trying to do more than asking a question overall. As I'm personally on the side of something did happen

But isn't that the point? The ONLY way to truly hash this out is to actually take the time necessary to investigate fully the claims of both sides, along with the claims and statements of supporters?
And aren't the people trying to ram-rod a vote, trying to openly deny that from happening?
And this is why the yelling?

@Stace @Kronykal @code

@InvaderGzim @code @Kronykal @Stace That was exactly my opinion.

@InvaderGzim @britt @Stace @code

Investigate what? The Senate Judiciary whose job it is it investigate this has been investigating. Everyone contacted has said either they don’t remember or it didn’t happen. You want the FBI to go around getting told the same thing when it isn’t even their jurisdiction?

@Kronykal @code @Stace @InvaderGzim It IS their jurisdiction. This exact same thing happened with Frank / Thomas. The Senate Judiciary is not even remotely an investigatory body; having Republican aides call people to get the quotes the want isn't an investigation.

@britt @InvaderGzim @Stace @code

This was explained and I’ve posted it a few times. Here’s the beginning of the thread.

https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1042824909267849221?s=21

@Kronykal @code @Stace @InvaderGzim
Sorry, Kron, but I don't put a lot of faith in a tweet from an account run by the republicans that don't want this investigated. I don't think there's any room for us to meet in the middle on this if you think the Senate Judiciary is better suited than the FBI to investigate rape charges and perform background checks.

@britt @code @Stace @InvaderGzim

You’re right. There’s no room for us to meet in the middle on this. That’s been evident since yesterday on this site.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @Stace @code
If you want to give me an actual argument, I'll try to listen, but I have not heard a single good argument for the Senate doing background checks or investigating rape, or how an FBI investigation would be unreasonable, or how these allegations are inherently false. Give me a real argument based on precedent, law, rules, and fact. Precedent, law, rules, and facts support the FBI performing at least a cursory investigation.

@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

While they could request the President ask the FBI to investigate, the problem I and many others have is time. The ultimate goal, in my opinion (and I think if people are honest they’d admit this is the case) is to push this past midterms. That’s why all of this has been executed at the last minute and why everything has been a stall tactic, including this woman’s indecisive, constant foot dragging on whether she’ll testify or not.

I don’t see how 1/2

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt Perhaps they feel the Merrick Garland treatment is justified. We watch as our democracy bends but does not break.

@USAPatriot @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

Ok. Then I hope you like not filling that seat at all for the next 2-6 years. Better hope Ginsburg doesn’t croak.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt Who set the precedent? I generally hope no one croaks, except croakers, who do it so well.

@USAPatriot @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

Obama got 2 SCOTUS appointments.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt Justice will be done.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt @USAPatriot

There is no set number of "allowable" SCOTUS appts.

He was denied a hearing on a qualified appointee based on nothing but partisanship.

@tyghebright @USAPatriot @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

He had enough. It was his last year and a presidential election year. No. Too bad.

Let’s see the Democrats try to pull that for years.

@InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt

the FBI investigating this will do anything beyond delaying it further, which again is the entire point. Witnesses she’s named don’t remember or blatantly say it didn’t happen. Nothing can be proven one way or the other. It’s just not possible. It’s he said/she said. So delaying serves no purpose. The SJC has questioned everyone and offered Ford multiple ways for testifying. This isn’t a criminal court. The FBI simply does background investigations.

@Kronykal @Stace @code @InvaderGzim
As you say, this isn't a criminal court; we don't need to prove innocence or guilt. This is a job interview and there are now at least four women that have come forward with claims that might cast serious doubts on whether this person should be hired. If it's really such a simple thing and so obviously false, just make a sworn statement to the FBI that this didn't happen and that's about all that can be done. Would you object to asking for that?

@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

Oh did another one get dig up from the bowels of nowhere while I was working? Lolol... amazing.

It comes down to this. Either Kavanaugh gets confirmed or nobody does. I want him confirmed.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace
LOLing about four women accusing a SCOTUS nominee of sexual assault is kind of...asshole-ish. I understand you want him confirmed. Can you separate your desired outcome from the process? Is the process irrelevant as long as you get your desired outcome?
\

@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

This late stage process has been marred by politics. To me it’s a sideshow last ditch attempt to stop something they have no other way of stopping. I’m not laughing at the women. I’m laughing at what I perceive as absolute political dirty, nasty bullshit that they should all be ashamed of for pulling.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt
I think it is clear politics are involved and that you’re correct.. there are plenty of people on the left who would see this dragged out because they fear some major changes in laws concerning rights they fought for decades for.

But It’s also clear that an investigation should happen before a lifetime appointment. There are always going to be politics. The Right is just as guilty of pushing things through and nasty political tricks.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt

I also think that an investigation is necessary.

The absurdity of a teenager keeping a 36 year old calendar makes me question the competence of not only Kavanaugh but also his “team” and those on the right who would pretend this is a viable response to the allegations.

It’s not only the Dr’s allegations and the threats on her life that concern me. There are two more women alleging similar behaviour. The response also doesn’t sit well.

@Kronykal @code @Stace @britt @InvaderGzim

Exactly. “He said/she” said proves nothing however polygraph tests are considered evidence. Pushing through rather than allowing the FBI to investigate ignores not only the polygraph tests but the allegations of all three. Pushing through seems to serve no legitimate purpose other than to get this guy in there. This is a lifetime appointment so why NOT consider whether or not the allegations are true and discoverable by a background check?

@Museek @InvaderGzim @Stace @code @Kronykal
I agree with a lot of that, except for the polygraph test part. Polygraph tests are usually inadmissible and are notoriously unreliable. I'm not saying she's lying, just that polygraphs aren't good.

@britt @Kronykal @code @Stace @InvaderGzim

Ok I’m not an attorney but why take the things if they aren’t admissible then? What are they used for?

Just curious and by the way I texted that quickly.. I didn’t mean to say ‘a teen with a 36 year old calendar’ but you guys got the idea, right? I’m an independent. Once I was a republican. life experience changed my viewpoints but I’m still conservative on certain issues. The republicans in office however bear no resemblance to what I knew.

@Museek @InvaderGzim @Stace @code @Kronykal @britt Amen.

@Museek @InvaderGzim @Stace @code @Kronykal
Here's an article I found: https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/5999119/polygraphs-lie-detectors-do-they-work
Law enforcement still uses them more than I thought, but they are inadmissible in court. I'd guess they are alright for corroborating other evidence, but alone they have too many false positives and negatives to be trustworthy. There's likely also the psychological effect of "look, I passed a polygraph, so trust me!" or "look, you failed the polygraph, so make a plea!"

@britt thanks... will read after lunch. :-)

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace
So your main point is that you want the nomination approved before midterms because a delay is wrong? I assume you said the same two years ago. Even if that is the case, the time required to do this for Hill/Thomas was 3 days. It's already been more than a week.

Some claimed witnesses have said it didn't happen, some have said it's believable, some have said they don't know. The main one, Judge, refuses to say that to the FBI or under oath at the Senate.

@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

Do you honestly think the Democrats won’t do everything on their power to drag it out? I absolutely 100% know they will.

Some say it didn’t happen, so say they don’t remember it but they believe her. That’s nice and all but useless. They can believe her all day long and it won’t make a bit of factual difference. If Judge refuses to say then that’s that with him as well. Again we’re back to he said/she said, which is meaningless.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace
I really don't think you believe this, but I have to ask, are you saying that without physical evidence, all sexual assault allegations are pointless and don't deserve investigation? Please tell me how what you are saying does NOT lead to exactly that? 'It's he said / she said, so let's not look into it because it might take more time than I like.'

@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

No. I don’t believe that. I think some things are more believable than others. So far no shred of evidence has come forward to support her story. Not one. And I know you’re not naive enough not to see the clear political threads weaves through this. Why didn’t we hear about it at all until it was clear nothing else was going to stop the confirmation? Please don’t say “cuz she didn’t want it public” because that ship sailed and she got on it.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace
I will definitely admit that some politics probably played some part in how timing happened, but I don't think Dr. Ford did that; I think the Democrats tried to manipulate some things. Even if politics played a role in timing, you really think that has any bearing on whether it gets investigated? Besides, if people really wanted this resolved quickly, it's not hard or time-consuming; just let the FBI investigate. Literally, three days last time this happened.

@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

I think it has an enormous bearing on whether I support it being investigated the way you think it should. They should have brought it to light in July when they got the letter. I’m satisfied with investigating the SJC has done. They’ve been more than accommodating. Much more than I would have been.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace
How about this, I think we can agree on a few points:
1) Democrats are trying to stall until after midterms, no matter what.
2) Republicans are trying to get the vote through before midterms, no matter what.
3) Sexual assault allegations are important and should probably be investigated.

How long is too long to spend on this? How about we let the FBI investigate until right before midterms, then vote? Would that satisfy everyone?

@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

If you could somehow guarantee that I’d definitely agree to that.

But that’s a unicorn.

@Kronykal @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim But if the accuser was male everyone would "understand" why he kept quiet for 35 years all of a sudden. In fact everyone would be applauding his bravery for finally "coming out". Politics or no, it IS a huge thing to decide to bring up. Why now? well, up to know he wasn't going to be in a lifelong position making rulings that affect women. Now he may be. And I can see it was messing with her sleep at night if she said nothing.

@Blackwolf @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

I don’t know why you think that’s so. It has nothing to do with whether it’s a male or female to me. At all.

@britt @Stace @code @Kronykal @InvaderGzim

Look at the Committee's jurisdiction, maybe?

@Kronykal @code @Stace @InvaderGzim
If you want to convince me, one way would be to point to the part of this document that says the FBI isn't supposed to investigate this stuff, or that the Senate is supposed to, or that these things should not be investigated at all.

https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/pom/crtplans/transcribe/Background_Checks_and_Investigations_Policy.pdf

Or show me why these policies aren't relevant to a SCOTUS nominee.