Kavanaugh sworn in

[invegauser]

i hate you wikipedia...

Impeachment in the United States is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, this is at the discretion of the House of Representatives. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which officials have been impeached and subsequently convicted for crimes committed prior to taking office.^[1] The impeached official remains in office until a trial is held. That trial, and their removal from office if convicted, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. Analogous to a trial before a judge and jury, these proceedings are (where the legislature is bicameral) conducted by upper house of the legislature, which at the federal level is the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States


According to federal statute, the Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

The Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronym SCOTUS)^[2] is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

In the United States, the word ?impeachment? is merely the term for the proceeding that begins the process of removing an official from the government. Thus, while this particular section of the Constitution sets the broad outline for what is expected of a federal judge (that he or she sit in ?good Behavior?)

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/article-03-section-01/impeachment-of-federal-judges/

from fbi website:

Protect the United States from terrorist attack
Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
Combat public corruption at all levels
Protect civil rights
Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises
Combat major white-collar crime
Combat significant violent crime


what does the fbi do with information and evidence gathered during an investigation?

If a possible violation of federal law under the jurisdiction of the FBI has occurred, the Bureau will conduct an investigation. The information and evidence gathered in the course of that investigation are then presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who will determine whether or not prosecution or further action is warranted. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, evidence is either returned or retained for court.

if a crime is committed that is a violation of local, state and federal laws, does the fbi take over the investigation?

No. State and local law enforcement agencies are not subordinate to the FBI, and the FBI does not supervise or take over their investigations. Instead, the investigative resources of the FBI and state and local agencies are often pooled in a common effort to investigate and solve the cases. In fact, many task forces composed of FBI agents and state and local officers have been formed to locate fugitives and to address serious threats like terrorism and street violence.

and here's two that are interesting reads for FBI's role in such a proceeding:

https://www.apnews.com/f88f394af6734f4ea5d5c91eaa787775

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...gation-dle/h_7b3f4fb4aa0b9cbe2605ecb2688fc0f5

so unless someone can come up with a better definition or a clearer answer (and please, feel free to polish up the details on your own) the way i see it is: yes the fbi can investigate this case. (but then again i'm not a federal employee of any kind so i couldn't say)

you would figure with the access to technological information that people would be more associated with knowing by understanding something instead of being at the ready to voice thoughts that flit through their minds just as quick as they die off... and this is why i hate wikipedia. it's a reference tool not an end all cause it gets edited by anyone with half a brain and a password to create an account.

so less jerry springer and more factual please. you sound like a bunch of opinionated drama queens. i'm a latch key kid too, doesn't mean we can't be civil about this.

 

[swilow]

A good thing to know about in debate is logical fallacies https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
See how many of the 15 fallacies here you spot in this thread.

Useful post- its always good to recall these sort of ideas; but also, do recall that we are merely having a discussion here. Its not really a formal argument.

Still, logical fallacies and bias are important things to consider. I think we all easily fall into these little traps, but an awareness of their existence can be a useful start.

 

[treezy z]

invegauser, if you read your post instead of copy-pasting you would see that your conclusion that "yes the FBI can investigate" is wrong.

The Anita Hill allegation involved an offense commited on federal property at a federal agency. Thus they had jurisdiction.

They don't have jurisdiction over alleged sexual assaults at teenage parties decades ago.

The reason they want an FBI investigation is twofold.
1 - If they investigate, it will go on forever, definitely past the midterms.
2 - the real reason - Ford demands an FBI investigation before testifying, which everyone knows it will not happen, and she will have an excuse not to testify.

 

[invegauser]

i could care less why "they" want one. that's not how the system works.

for one who is so up on the way things work you sure do forget that your same thinking can be applied to you in a court of law if it weren't for the same laws protecting you entitling you to a fair trial.

stop cherry picking and start understanding.

fyi copypasting only works if i have no idea what i'm talking about and using one of the techniques you posted a link about. i provided links and excerpts from them leading you all to your own conclusion with what is known (roughly), not telling you what is (hence the part about me not holding office on a federal level).

 

[treezy z]

i could care less why "they" want one. that's not how the system works.

for one who is so up on the way things work you sure do forget that your same thinking can be applied to you in a court of law if it weren't for the same laws protecting you entitling you to a fair trial.

stop cherry picking and start understanding.

What the hell are you even talking about? The FBI has no jurisdiction.

Maybe I'm wrong about why they want the FBI to investigate. Who cares? They can't investigate, so it is a ridiculous demand.

 

[invegauser]

i provided links and information and you can't hash out the rest for yourself.

the president of the united states of america can tell the FBI to investigate.

the FBI can corroborate with other law enforcement officers.

you answer my question. cops investigate in state laws and federal ones (that last one depends on what state you live in) per their own districts (i.e. states and county lines). who investigates the federal crimes committed by elected federal employees (specifically the three branches of the united states of america) ?

 

[invegauser]

for starters - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

it would behoove you to heed swilows advice. almost all those here know and practice the same thing.

all i did was answer a question that was posed to the thread (or tried to the best of my ability). nothing more.

 

[treezy z]

i provided links and information and you can't hash out the rest for yourself.

the president of the united states of america can tell the FBI to investigate.

the FBI can corroborate with other law enforcement officers.

you answer my question. cops investigate in state laws and federal ones (that last one depends on what state you live in) per their own districts (i.e. states and county lines). who investigates the federal crimes committed by elected federal employees (specifically the three branches of the united states of america) ?

Dude you posted a CNN article that leaves out KEY FUCKING INFORMATION that the Anita Hill allegation was on federal property at a federal agency. A complete and utter lie by omission for those who take news companies at their word without looking into things.

If you are one of these people (you posted the article and all) I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole of links of misleading articles.

And I understand Trump can ask the FBI to investigate. Why would he? It will take months, the GOP will get slaughtered in the midterms for being pathetic, Kavanaugh will not be confirmed and he will be a lame duck. Is he supposed to sabotage his presidency because Ford comes out of the woodwork with 36 year old, unsubstantiated allegations, that even features a witness (Mark Judge) who says the event never took place?

Do you understand what you are proposing? That the best thing to do if you want to oppose someone politically is have a woman accuse them of something with no evidence, and you win? The silent, undemocratic veto, that can be used at any time?

 

[invegauser]

your

not

listening!!

i answered a question. i did not make up peoples minds for them. i did not tell them to think a certain way. i didn't influence anything. i added no opinion. i'm only responsible for what i say and not how others take it (you being a case in point here).

all i did was answer that 2 + 2 = 4.

your looking into it too much.

stop telling me what i said and did. i propose nothing.

cause i simply answered a question.

you have yet to answer mine...!

 

[treezy z]

who investigates the federal crimes committed by elected federal employees (specifically the three branches of the united states of america) ?

See those words I highlighted? That's the missing piece for an FBI investigation. There's no federal crime here.

 

[invegauser]

to the room: my apologies. i did not mean to make a mockery of what you all were doing here by inadvertently causing a useless conversation to derail the thread or decrease involvement in it.

i hope i answered the question that was posed to a sufficient level. if not it's as good as any place to start from.

thank you for the participation in the thread and i look forward to the outcome of the trial itself. have a nice day. peace.

 

[treezy z]

to the room: my apologies. i did not mean to make a mockery of what you all were doing here by inadvertently causing a useless conversation to derail the thread or decrease involvement in it.

i hope i answered the question that was posed to a sufficient level. if not it's as good as any place to start from.

thank you for the participation in the thread and i look forward to the outcome of the trial itself. have a nice day. peace.

Ok.

Anyone who reads the CNN link this guy posted, should just know the Anita Hill thing was on federal property at a federal agency, so that link is misleading/a lie by omission.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

TLB, Kavanaugh has made it clear in his published works that he believes in the empowerment of the executive branch over other branches. That's proof enough to me that he's against the spirit of the Constitution, which was painstakingly designed to avoid one branch becoming too powerful and resulting in a dictatorship akin to the monarchy our founding fathers so desired to escape.

Again, they'd be rolling in their graves at the thought of a president appointing such a judge to the supreme court. I believe Ali linked one of his writings in this thread.

I'm happy to see these accusations levied because apparently his anti-constitutional beliefs aren't enough to bar him from appointment. I don't care if they're true or not; if they keep an immoral, anti-American man out of the supreme court I'm happy.

I realize Dems would likely do this shit to any pick (Gorsuch got through smooth tho? Makes you wonder about Brett... Not to mention they went to the same school and Gorsuch managed to avoid any attempted rapes in his time there...) but that doesn't nullify the fact that Kavanaugh should be stopped. Let him go muck up things in his current job, and pick a TRUE conservative for the supreme court instead. Like I said, he had three other good picks, but instead he narrowed it down to the worst possible two he could from the bunch.

 

[treezy z]

Cream Gravy, thank you for telling the truth on your position. It should be patently obvious that this whole situation is exactly as Cream Gravy describes, a cynical political attack, a "silent veto."

None of them give a damn about Christine Ford, or they wouldn't have leaked her name to the press and kept this quiet, like she wanted.

Oh and by the way, if you want a system where any man you know can be crushed by the media, be made unemployable and have his life ruined by a few vague words, vote Democrat, the original party of Jim Crow lynch mobs.

 

[invegauser]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...gation-dle/h_7b3f4fb4aa0b9cbe2605ecb2688fc0f5

If you are one of these people (you posted the article and all) I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole of links of misleading articles.

McConnell accuses Democrats of waiting until 11th hour to release Kavanaugh allegation. (22nd from the top)

"It is an accusation which the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction has known about for at least six weeks. Known about for six weeks. Yet chose to keep secret until the 11th hour," he said.

Is he supposed to sabotage his presidency because Ford comes out of the woodwork with 36 year old, unsubstantiated allegations

Trump says he feels terribly for Kavanaugh and his family (8th from the top)

President Trump defended his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh...

"Hopefully the woman will come forward, state her case," Trump said.

President Trump defends Kavanaugh, but says he's open to a delay. (23rd from the top)

"If it takes a little delay, it will take a little delay," Trump said.

Ok.

Anyone who reads the CNN link this guy posted,....., so that link is misleading/a lie

Kavanaugh denies the assault occurred, and the white house stands behind him. (4th from the bottom)

a source close to Kavanaugh says, "He remains steadfast in his denial and is determined not to let a single, unverified allegation overshadow his long judicial record and his lifetime of public service."

Do you understand what you are proposing?

 

[swilow]

I'm happy to see these accusations levied because apparently his anti-constitutional beliefs aren't enough to bar him from appointment. I don't care if they're true or not; if they keep an immoral, anti-American man out of the supreme court I'm happy.

Eh, while I get what you are saying, I really think that would a regretttable path to head down. I would much rather we judged these people based on reality and truth. You could argue that manipulating facts for political purposes (no matter how altruistic) is unconstitutional too. Either way, shouldn't upholding the truth- you know, the objective truth- be more important than upholding the sanctity of a political document?

Says the Australian who is often frankly baffled at the views of his American brothers regarding the constitution.

Like I said, he had three other good picks, but instead he narrowed it down to the worst possible two he could from the bunch.

Trump probably knew Kavanaugh was someone he could coerce through blackmail.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

^Fair enough. I would be upset if the allegations were somehow proven false, upset because it would be a mockery of the justice system and the American people at large. Upset because unsubstantiated rape claims are indeed a sick and terrible way to attack someone. I guess my vehement distaste for Kavanaugh got the best of me this time.

I'm not advocating the democrats to levy unfounded allegations, but I can't deny that I'm happy someone found something to hold off this vote.

And as Ali said earlier in the thread, it's awfully hypocritical that Reps want to push through a supreme court pick right before an election, when just two years ago they flipped their shit at the thought of the Dems doing the exact same thing. The 'path' that we're heading down, as you say Swilz, was pioneered and lined with neon lights by the Republican party.

It's arguable that Republican congressmen are the ones who started this most recent culture war. Their childish actions during the Obama years set the precedent for what the Democrats are now doing. Can we really blame the Democrats for acting exactly like their counterparts? Precedent is 90% of American law it seems. If the Republicans wanted to have reasonable discourse with their counterparts, they shouldn't have spent 8 years acting like children.

Of course it's equally immature for the Dems to act like them in return, but hell. What can you expect them to do when such a precedent has been set?

 

[alasdairm]

That's why I voted for Trump, he was not a member of this club full of snakes.

the idea that trump was the anti-establishment candidate is laughable. things are just as bad, if not worse, now trump is in the oval office.

alasdair

 

[treezy z]

Creamy Gravy not denying GOP obstruction (right wing independent, would have been considered center right 10 years ago, I grew up watching Bush and Cheney commit crimes.)

But which republican used the "rape allegation filibuster (denied by witnesses?)"

 

[treezy z]

the idea that trump was the anti-establishment candidate is laughable. things are just as bad, if not worse, now trump is in the oval office.

alasdair

Every TV station but Fox runs 2 minutes of hate on Trump. Dozens of leaks to the press. Corporations campaign against him, often losing customers. Social media bans his supporters. Life long political hacks joke about attacking his supporters. Clinton calls them deplorable, Biden calls them dregs. Both lifelong liars (politicians.)

He is loved by the establishment how again?