Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:30 am

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:28 am

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:14 am She's smart enough to know that nothing is likely to come of an fbi investigation either. What's her motivation for that? To get Kavanaugh to lie to the police? Then what?

Let's assume she is being honest then I think it is more that she realized she'd be on tv recounting her sexual assault and maybe she doesn't want to do that. Who would? Especially when everyone is just going to call you a liar and parse every sentence to make you into a monster destroying a "good man's" life. It'd be better to have someone independent weigh in and then defend their report but that isn't going to happen.

She's a professor and a woman and has had 35 years to think about it.

You think the ramifications of what's she's doing are only just occurring to her?

She had 35 years to know that the man would be a Supreme Court nominee? Or understand the pressure that'd she be put under if she actually spoke up? Also what does being a Professor or a woman have anything to do with any of that?

The second one.

Also,
a) smart
b) understands what it means to come forward as a victim of sexual assault, let alone against a powerful man, in ways that most men will never be able to understand
c) 35 years to think about these things
d) she did it anyway, including identifying herself as the victim.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:26 am Ok, I'll buy that.

How does statute of limitations enter into it, if at all?

a). Does it exist for sexual assault?
b) if it does, has it passed?
c). If it has, how do the FBI normally treat allegations of crimes past the limitations?
d). Is the FBI in the habit of investigating crimes that they can't do anything about, assuming that's true in this case?

These hearings aren't a trial. They're a job interview.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:39 am These hearings aren't a trial. They're a job interview.

Come on guys, I'm not THAT confusing.

She's asking for an fbi investigation first, that is where all my fbi questions originate.

Are you saying that she's just using it as an excuse to get out of the "job interview" as you say?

You seem to be implying that her asking for an fbi investigation is disingenuous. Is that correct? She doesn't actually want the investigation, it's just a tactic?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:42 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:39 am These hearings aren't a trial. They're a job interview.

Come on guys, I'm not THAT confusing.

She's asking for an fbi investigation first, that is where all my fbi questions originate.

Are you saying that she's just using it as an excuse to get out of the "job interview" as you say?

You seem to be implying that her asking for an fbi investigation is disingenuous. Is that correct? She doesn't actually want the investigation, it's just a tactic?

It is definitely a tactical decision by its nature. I think we have to rely on some empathy here. Maybe she doesn't want to do it because it is overwhelming. Maybe it is because it isn't true. Maybe it is because she thinks the hearing will be unfair to her or the truth. Or dozens of other reasons.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:42 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:39 am These hearings aren't a trial. They're a job interview.

Come on guys, I'm not THAT confusing.

She's asking for an fbi investigation first, that is where all my fbi questions originate.

Are you saying that she's just using it as an excuse to get out of the "job interview" as you say?

You seem to be implying that her asking for an fbi investigation is disingenuous. Is that correct? She doesn't actually want the investigation, it's just a tactic?

Me? No. I think she does want the investigation. It would get witnesses (to her talking about this assault years ago) on record, supporting her claim to seriousness. This is why the Republicans do not want an investigation.

My "job interview" point is that the statute of limitations is irrelevant. There's no SOL in background checks.

I don't think she or anyone else expects charges to be filed. Most of us just don't want to see a guy who behaved this way as a late teen and then lied about it right now be given a seat on the highest court.

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:49 am I think she does want the investigation. It would get witnesses (to her talking about this assault years ago) on record, supporting her claim to seriousness. This is why the Republicans do not want an investigation.

So we're back to my question. Is the FBI in the habit of actually opening and executing an investigation into a crime that is already past the statute of limitations, assuming it is?

I presume a case file would be opened and that the details of the reported crime would be recorded. Would they actually do anything else?

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:48 am It is definitely a tactical decision by its nature.

But is it *just* a tactic?

If I understand you correctly, you don't care what her motivation for requesting it is, or that it's irrelevant, is that correct?

Understanding the actions of everyone involved might better help me understand the situation.

She *clearly* came forward now because this man who assaulted her is about to become a SCOTUS judge. So from her perspective, she either wants to stop it or at a minimum make sure everyone knows what kind of man they're voting for.

Does that mean we are to assume every step she takes from now on is motivated solely by the desire to see him stopped? Is the crime now secondary to stopping him?

Because if the goal is to stop him and the crime is only a means to an end (even if it's also the driving force behind it) then that opens up a whole bunch of options that might not be related to getting justice for herself.

And that could well be. Do people agree that it is?

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:49 am I think she does want the investigation. It would get witnesses (to her talking about this assault years ago) on record, supporting her claim to seriousness. This is why the Republicans do not want an investigation.

So we're back to my question. Is the FBI in the habit of actually opening and executing an investigation into a crime that is already past the statute of limitations, assuming it is?

I presume a case file would be opened and that the details of the reported crime would be recorded. Would they actually do anything else?

The FBI does background checks on Supreme Court nominees, as I understand it, and this would fall into the type of investigation they would run as part of a background check.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:03 am The FBI does background checks on Supreme Court nominees, as I understand it, and this would fall into the type of investigation they would run as part of a background check.

Ok, that helps, thanks.

With new information, the background check should probably be expanded to include victim(s) and witnesses.

That makes sense. That's not what she's asking for, but maybe that's what she meant.

GreenGoo wrote:The second one.

Also,
a) smart
b) understands what it means to come forward as a victim of sexual assault, let alone against a powerful man, in ways that most men will never be able to understand
c) 35 years to think about these things
d) she did it anyway, including identifying herself as the victim.

B) needs to be expanded to include today's environment, where death threats and massive harassment are the new norm.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:05 am

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:03 am The FBI does background checks on Supreme Court nominees, as I understand it, and this would fall into the type of investigation they would run as part of a background check.

Ok, that helps, thanks.

With new information, the background check should probably be expanded to include victim(s) and witnesses.

That makes sense. That's not what she's asking for, but maybe that's what she meant.

That appears to be what she is asking for. Also the statement from her lawyer also alludes that she doesn't want the first thing to be a hearing on Monday. Why? Probably because as others have said it'll turn into a he said/she said food fight versus a legitimate process to come to an understanding on the truth.

The NY Times wrote:Speaking through lawyers, Christine Blasey Ford said she would cooperate with the Senate Judiciary Committee and left open the possibility of testifying later about her allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. But echoing Senate Democrats, she said an investigation should be “the first step” before she is put “on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident.”

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:26 am
How does statute of limitations enter into it, if at all?

a). Does it exist for sexual assault?

Maryland does not have a statue of limitations for attempted rape. It could still be investigated here.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:28 amMaryland does not have a statue of limitations for attempted rape. It could still be investigated here.

Well, good thing Gerogetown Prep has an unofficial motto:

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep," Kavanaugh joked during a speech at the Catholic University's Columbus School of Law in Washington.

Speech was in 2015. Apparently he's a real class act. Only the best.

"But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,'" Kavanaugh said, drawing a few laughs. "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

Fitzy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:28 am
Maryland does not have a statue of limitations for attempted rape. It could still be investigated here.

Thanks.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:33 am Surprising exactly no one, the response is officially "testify Monday or nothing"

I wish the GOP would push this hard to reunite the families they ripped apart with Trump's policies in play.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:33 am Surprising exactly no one, the response is officially "testify Monday or nothing"

Yep - they don't have to time to drag this out. In fact, if she flat out refuses they very well might do the committee vote early next week. They need to focus on mid-terms. They likely are figuring they already lost a week to this.

Also, this whole thing is a sad commentary on how far we have fallen. Death threats are now an emerging norm to silence opposition. Her email was hacked. Think about that. We are in a very, very bad place.

Letter from Ford's lawyer.

In the 36 hours since her name became public, Dr. Ford has received a stunning amount of
support from her community and from fellow citizens across our country. At the same time,
however, her worst fears have materialized. She has been the target of vicious harassment and
even death threats. As a result of these kind of threats, her family was forced to relocate out of
their home. Her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online.

While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public
hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators
on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident. The hearing was scheduled
for six short days from today and would include interrogation by Senators who appear to have
made up their minds that she is “mistaken” and “mixed up.” While no sexual assault survivor
should be subjected to such an ordeal, Dr. Ford wants to cooperate with the Committee and with
law enforcement officials.

As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the
incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations. A full investigation by law
enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in
a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or
making any decisions.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:21 am

GreenGoo wrote:The second one.

Also,
a) smart
b) understands what it means to come forward as a victim of sexual assault, let alone against a powerful man, in ways that most men will never be able to understand
c) 35 years to think about these things
d) she did it anyway, including identifying herself as the victim.

B) needs to be expanded to include today's environment, where death threats and massive harassment are the new norm.

Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick say there is nothing new about the tactic.

This whole thing is making me crazy. Now she's refusing to testify on Monday or ever until the FBI investigates? Could she and her lawyers have put a bigger bow on that present to the GOP? Every single GOP member on that committee must be doing a victory dance right now. What did she think was going to happen? Of course they would say that they offered her a chance to tell her story and move on directly to a vote. In fact, they're likely to still go forward with the hearing but only receive testimony from Kavanaugh.

And, honestly, what does anyone really expect to get out of an FBI investigation? I know people here have suggested that the FBI could look into claims that there was someone else in the room -- Mark Judge -- and that she previously recounted the story of this assault. But neither of those lines of inquiry is likely to move the needle. Judge wrote a book about routinely drinking so much in those years that he blacked out. Not exactly a reliable witness to events that happened at parties back in the day, and he's already indicated that he has no interest in cooperating. And in terms of her previous statements, those are still statements from her given decades after the alleged incident. An FBI investigation on this thing is not going to be "a legitimate process to come to an understanding on the truth."

Without some kind of reasonable corroboration, in 2018, there's no "understanding of the truth" of an alleged sexual assault that took place between teenagers in 1982.

Maybe she got cold feet on testifying. I'm not going to judge her for that. But putting this out there and then refusing to testify when offered the opportunity is a disappointing outcome. Except for Grassley and Hatch and their cronies.

Shitty theater. All of it.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:32 am Well, good thing Gerogetown Prep has an unofficial motto:

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep," Kavanaugh joked during a speech at the Catholic University's Columbus School of Law in Washington.

Speech was in 2015. Apparently he's a real class act. Only the best.

"But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,'" Kavanaugh said, drawing a few laughs. "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

You got him! Nailed. Way to solve the case.

No, em2 solved it when he regurgitated far right misinformation about their parents.

At least smoove's isn't alt-facts. It's not about solving it. It's freaking ominous though *if* he did the things he's accused of doing.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:03 amYou got him! Nailed. Way to solve the case.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:16 am No, em2 solved it when he regurgitated far right misinformation about their parents.

At least smoove's isn't alt-facts. It's not about solving it. It's freaking ominous though *if* he did the things he's accused of doing.

Of course it's ominous *IF* he did the things he's accused of doing. But it's not at all probative of whether he actually did those things.

BTW, apologies to Smoove for the snark. The news is just frustrating me more than usual this morning.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:16 am No, em2 solved it when he regurgitated far right misinformation about their parents.

Thanks for the opening, I've got a new theory. Feinstein has evidence which calls the supposed crime into question, she's gambling no one is going to ask her to produce it under oath. If nobody questions her on it and then everybody later finds out about it she can always say look I told you "I can't say everything is truthful". Why would Feinstein have said "I can't say everything is truthful" otherwise?

The question needs to be worded correctly. "Have you seen?" won't do, Feinstein may have asked someone to read it to her so if asked if she's seen any evidence she can say "No". I mean what is the definition of "is" anyway? LMAO Brinkmanship is the new word for the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8

Your babbling is making less sense than normal today, Em2.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:01 pm But it's not at all probative of whether he actually did those things.

Call me when smoove's on the jury.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:03 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:32 am Well, good thing Gerogetown Prep has an unofficial motto:

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep," Kavanaugh joked during a speech at the Catholic University's Columbus School of Law in Washington.

Speech was in 2015. Apparently he's a real class act. Only the best.

"But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,'" Kavanaugh said, drawing a few laughs. "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

You got him! Nailed. Way to solve the case.

Interesting letter from someone who knows all three (Kavanaugh, Ford, and Judge) from high school. "Yeah, it happened".

I heard about it so it must be true. Makes sense.

Rip wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:53 pm I heard about it so it must be true. Makes sense.

Almost as much sense as "but he's a nice guy now, so it obviously never could have happened".

ImLawBoy wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:49 am I think she does want the investigation. It would get witnesses (to her talking about this assault years ago) on record, supporting her claim to seriousness. This is why the Republicans do not want an investigation.

So we're back to my question. Is the FBI in the habit of actually opening and executing an investigation into a crime that is already past the statute of limitations, assuming it is?

I presume a case file would be opened and that the details of the reported crime would be recorded. Would they actually do anything else?

The FBI does background checks on Supreme Court nominees, as I understand it, and this would fall into the type of investigation they would run as part of a background check.

Per NPR expert, the FBI now have a closed client requested back ground Check for Kavanaugh. It's completed. The Whitehouse is the client serviced. It would be against policy to reopen Kavanaugh's BG check without an explicit request from the original client, the white house. It would not be in their pervue to open an investigation for attempted rape in a particular jurisdiction. Thus, for the FBI to do anything, this has to get bad enough that Trump asks for a followup to the initially closed BG check. Congress can only pressure trump, not the FBI.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

So, the last resort, is that by Monday they need to assemble as many signatures from the school days signing off on "He did it" vs. as many signatures as they can find for "He's a nice guy" and then pit the two of them in head-to-head mortal combat on the floor in front of the committee.

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:55 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:49 am I think she does want the investigation. It would get witnesses (to her talking about this assault years ago) on record, supporting her claim to seriousness. This is why the Republicans do not want an investigation.

So we're back to my question. Is the FBI in the habit of actually opening and executing an investigation into a crime that is already past the statute of limitations, assuming it is?

I presume a case file would be opened and that the details of the reported crime would be recorded. Would they actually do anything else?

The FBI does background checks on Supreme Court nominees, as I understand it, and this would fall into the type of investigation they would run as part of a background check.

Per NPR expert, the FBI now have a closed client requested back ground Check for Kavanaugh. It's completed. The Whitehouse is the client serviced. It would be against policy to reopen Kavanaugh's BG check without an explicit request from the original client, the white house. It would not be in their pervue to open an investigation for attempted rape in a particular jurisdiction. Thus, for the FBI to do anything, this has to get bad enough that Trump asks for a followup to the initially closed BG check. Congress can only pressure trump, not the FBI.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

purview. though with this white house, Perv - ue may be appropriate

Pyperkub wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:55 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:49 am I think she does want the investigation. It would get witnesses (to her talking about this assault years ago) on record, supporting her claim to seriousness. This is why the Republicans do not want an investigation.

So we're back to my question. Is the FBI in the habit of actually opening and executing an investigation into a crime that is already past the statute of limitations, assuming it is?

I presume a case file would be opened and that the details of the reported crime would be recorded. Would they actually do anything else?

The FBI does background checks on Supreme Court nominees, as I understand it, and this would fall into the type of investigation they would run as part of a background check.

Per NPR expert, the FBI now have a closed client requested back ground Check for Kavanaugh. It's completed. The Whitehouse is the client serviced. It would be against policy to reopen Kavanaugh's BG check without an explicit request from the original client, the white house. It would not be in their pervue to open an investigation for attempted rape in a particular jurisdiction. Thus, for the FBI to do anything, this has to get bad enough that Trump asks for a followup to the initially closed BG check. Congress can only pressure trump, not the FBI.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

purview. though with this white house, Perv - ue may be appropriate

Heh, not a word in my daily usage.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:55 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:49 am I think she does want the investigation. It would get witnesses (to her talking about this assault years ago) on record, supporting her claim to seriousness. This is why the Republicans do not want an investigation.

So we're back to my question. Is the FBI in the habit of actually opening and executing an investigation into a crime that is already past the statute of limitations, assuming it is?

I presume a case file would be opened and that the details of the reported crime would be recorded. Would they actually do anything else?

The FBI does background checks on Supreme Court nominees, as I understand it, and this would fall into the type of investigation they would run as part of a background check.

Per NPR expert, the FBI now have a closed client requested back ground Check for Kavanaugh. It's completed. The Whitehouse is the client serviced. It would be against policy to reopen Kavanaugh's BG check without an explicit request from the original client, the white house. It would not be in their pervue to open an investigation for attempted rape in a particular jurisdiction. Thus, for the FBI to do anything, this has to get bad enough that Trump asks for a followup to the initially closed BG check. Congress can only pressure trump, not the FBI.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Which all involved presumably knew. Which is why the condition that Christine Blasey Ford will testify but only after the FBI has investigated is pure bullshit.

Also, I'm shocked that Christine King - the author of the letter posted above - is now the subject of numerous requests from news outlets for interviews and is uncertain if she wants to proceed with this. Who could have seen that coming???

Rip wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:53 pm I heard about it so it must be true. Makes sense.

I heard about it 30whatever years ago so all the claims that it's a made up story to thwart this nomination require acceptance of clairvoyance.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:21 pm Also, I'm shocked that Christine King - the author of the letter posted above - is now the subject of numerous requests from news outlets for interviews and is uncertain if she wants to proceed with this. Who could have seen that coming???

We will stipulate that not everyone is as smart as you.

The FBI took 3 days to follow up on Anita Hill. The White House doesn't want the FBI to look into this, and the FBI doesn't want the blame.

Kavanaugh and Judge's "locker room humor" about their early days is not helping.

Looks like there's a successful gofundme campaign to cover the cost of Dr. Blasey's security.