US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[Nintex]

Feinstein and Schumer are now trying Kim's approach of sending Trump a nice letter
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1043953198128680960

[Himu]

I know many people here don’t support guns but I wanted you guys to watch this to show the sheer contrast SAF and NRA.

[Dickie Dee]

New allegation against Kavanaugh

[Mandark]

Ben Shapiro had an "election special" on Fox News, and brought in Jason Whitlock to talk about polling data.

Whitlock is basically the sports version of a wank dad intellectual, so this makes a lot of sense.

[benjipwns]

Remember that time he ripped on every black person at ESPN as a phony after getting dismissed, then came back to pitch them "literally BLACK GRANTLAND" and they said sure. And it was a glorious success.

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1043953198128680960

Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

When did we collectively decide the FBI just investigates whatever? Especially things decades old with no evidence and outside its jurisdiction.

I know, I know, benji missing the point for the trees as usual, but like...still...I'm not like entirely crazy!

[Mandark]

The FBI already does background check investigations on Supreme Court nominees. They're being asked to look at the new allegations as part of that capacity.

[james]

I'm pretty sure the fbi even does the background on the IRS janitor hires.

Federal police oversees federal employees shocking I know

[Mandark]

There's another agency that does most of the background check stuff, which I think is independent of the FBI/DoJ, but relies on them for stuff like fingerprints database and criminal records, IIRC.

They also contract out a certain amount of the work (I only know this cause I've been interviewed as a reference, which will happen to anyone who lives in or around DC long enough).

[benjipwns]

But the most they can do is just add the accusations and everything else publicly known to the background check report. They can't "investigate" it as if it were a criminal case or come to any conclusions or make any judgments as to criminality or let alone as to what happened. Which is what many of these people seem to be demanding to me.

The Senate has subpoena powers to call the various named witnesses if they want them under oath to testify that they don't remember as they told the media. Then hold them in contempt and hit them with perjury for not shutting up and stepping up. I really don't think the FBI would ever want to get close to something like that in a background check.

[Mandark]

"Sure the FBI could investigate it, but the Senate can also subpoena people, so I don't understand why Democrats wouldn't want to just leave this in Chuck Grassley's hands."

[benjipwns]

I mean, this is the same FBI that refused to properly investigate and thus prosecute Seth Rich's killer, Hillary Clinton. Not even for her criminal e-mails and their criminal destruction.

[benjipwns]

"Sure the FBI could investigate it, but the Senate can also subpoena people, so I don't understand why Democrats wouldn't want to just leave this in Chuck Grassley's hands."

Who said that? I don't think the FBI can investigate it. They can "investigate" it, but that won't do anything since it'll just be repeating the accusation and denial.

The Democrats have already said they are going to be investigating this and the FBI over it when they take back Congress. Grassley is irrelevant.

[Mandark]

...

[benjipwns]

...

What? Does all of this only matter if it can somehow stop his confirmation? Pretty sure the GOP is going to vote for him anyway as expected. Or do you think they're actually going to blow up this opportunity over principles they've never claimed to hold?

I'm rather more concerned about the Democrats openly, publicly and repeatedly returning to an old vision as to the purpose of the FBI that we're instead supposed to pretend died with Hoover. Especially considering how it's quite a bipartisan one. Also, how many of these Senators were involved in that brilliant oversight of the NSA/CIA recently.

[Mandark]

I'm rather more concerned about the Democrats openly, publicly and repeatedly returning to an old vision as to the purpose of the FBI that we're instead supposed to pretend died with Hoover. Especially considering how it's quite a bipartisan one. Also, how many of these Senators were involved in that brilliant oversight of the NSA/CIA recently.

lmao

[benjipwns]

austy libs triggered again

[curly]

Remember that time he ripped on every black person at ESPN as a phony after getting dismissed, then came back to pitch them "literally BLACK GRANTLAND" and they said sure. And it was a glorious success.

The Deadspin story on Whitlock's leadership of The Undefeated was glorious



https://deadspin.com/how-jason-whitlock-is-poisoning-espns-black-grantland-1698683962

[kingv]

But the most they can do is just add the accusations and everything else publicly known to the background check report. They can't "investigate" it as if it were a criminal case or come to any conclusions or make any judgments as to criminality or let alone as to what happened. Which is what many of these people seem to be demanding to me.

The Senate has subpoena powers to call the various named witnesses if they want them under oath to testify that they don't remember as they told the media. Then hold them in contempt and hit them with perjury for not shutting up and stepping up. I really don't think the FBI would ever want to get close to something like that in a background check.

They did an additional investigation into Anita Hill’s allegations prior to concluding Clarence Thomas’s nomination process.

The investigation I think was inconclusive, because there weren’t really any witnesses, but it’s not a new idea or without precedent.

What I think they can do is establish if the people knew each other, establish each person’s story, and present it in one place. That’s not really available today. It’s just a mishmash of talking points (by design, imo).

[benjipwns]

The FBI's "investigation" of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas was interviewing both of them and then giving those to the committee. Who then went and questioned both of them publicly about it anyway.

[kingv]

I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad idea to have somebody interview them specifically to establish the facts as best they can be before the political grandstanding investigation that will be about everything but the facts.

Like what is Kavanaughs actual defense st this point?  He says the party never happened, while people directly connected to him say it was either a misunderstanding or mistaken identity. Whelan’s involvement also deserves investigation to understand 1) how he knew who she was before the information was public 2) how that BS mistaken identity story came to be.

Those details imo, are important to understand exactly what is going on. If Whelan heard this chicks name from a Kavanaugh that would seem to suggest that he knew exactly what the allegations were before they were published.

That Mark Judge dude should probably be interviewed, and friends of both can establish that the two knew each other and whether or not they ever hung out together.

[Mandark]

The Deadspin story on Whitlock's leadership of The Undefeated was glorious

It's hard to think of a more thorough demolition of someone.

I followed Greg Howard on Twitter and noticed that he'd stopped posting, and deleted all his old tweets. Turns out he was on the Shitty Media Men list (this explains several social media disappearances, including Emmett Rensin).

[benjipwns]

I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad idea to have somebody interview them specifically to establish the facts as best they can be before the political grandstanding investigation that will be about everything but the facts.

We're kinda weeks past that point.

Like what is Kavanaughs actual defense st this point?  He says the party never happened, while people directly connected to him say it was either a misunderstanding or mistaken identity. Whelan’s involvement also deserves investigation to understand 1) how he knew who she was before the information was public 2) how that BS mistaken identity story came to be.

Those details imo, are important to understand exactly what is going on. If Whelan heard this chicks name from a Kavanaugh that would seem to suggest that he knew exactly what the allegations were before they were published.

That Mark Judge dude should probably be interviewed, and friends of both can establish that the two knew each other and whether or not they ever hung out together.

This all just sounds insane to me. We form two special FBI task forces, one to investigate where a dope came up with the non-federal offense idea for his doppelganger theory aside from himself and the NOM-associated PR group (also behind the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth) that gave him the info, and then another to interview a tiny handful of people to give hearsay testimony about a non-federal offense from 35 years ago they didn't witness and in the end you'll have...her initially anonymous accusation (until someone helpfully "leaked" her name to the press almost immediately) and his denial. And the Committee will question him about it, and he'll deny it. And then they'll pass him onto the Senate on a party line vote.

If she can't or doesn't want to convince the GOP of her claims, what makes you think the FBI re-reporting "these are her claims, he denies them" is going to change their minds?

This really isn't something the FBI should be bothered with, all of your questions and any others (including further accusations) that come up in the future can be done without sticking the FBI into any of this. They should stick to federal crime investigations not writing summaries for the Senate on decades old semi-vague accusations with no evidence that aren't federal offenses or within FBI jurisdiction; things that are not only already all public at this point but that the Senate already knows and at least one member has known for months now.

Just because the FBI handled background check paperwork, and/or contracted them out, doesn't mean they're the proper investigative body for anything here.

[Mandark]

decades old semi-vague accusations with no evidence

ah

[kingv]

The fbi is absolutely the right place to do it.

The Senate probably can’t even do it well or in a non-partisan way.

The FBI is the closest thing to a neutral arbiter untouched by political influence.

More importantly they do the background checks for all federal court nominees. This would seem to be part of Kavanaughs background.

And were not weeks past anything. I would not be shocked to find out Kavanaugh withdraws tomorrow or Tuesday. If he doesn’t we will have another absolutely insane hearing.

[benjipwns]

Let me try to be a little more clear here before anyone else responds to my drivel. So if anyone did/does, my fault.

My political take: the GOP isn't going to pass up an opportunity like this, especially when they could lose their already thin majority next year...so ultimately
My "accusations" take: Ford's are a little vague but I don't particularly care about them or really whether any kind of claims against Kavanaugh are true or not in terms of it having any impact on the above and below
My hysteria take: keep the FBI and its powers and process the hell away from this kind of simple partisan politics (and probably doubly fucking no to some kind of "they should regularly be investigating based on partisan politics to see if there were any federal offenses committed" counterproposal unless you know)
 
Maybe that will help with the seemingly regular confusion I have that always seems to head straight for the weeds.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Which is the best indicator that the problem is me and I shouldn't play in waters I clearly can't handle and are grossly underinformed as to the depth.

[close]

[benjipwns]

The fbi is absolutely the right place to do it.

The Senate probably can’t even do it well or in a non-partisan way.

The FBI is the closest thing to a neutral arbiter untouched by political influence.

More importantly they do the background checks for all federal court nominees. This would seem to be part of Kavanaughs background.

Again, all the FBI can do here is interview her and him and say "this accusation was made against him in 2018, he denies it" which adds nothing to what the Senate already knows. And the public.

The FBI wasn't going to find an accusation never made in its six background checks. It doesn't become their investigative duty because they processed a background check to investigate this or anything else involving Kavanaugh as if it were a federal crime simply because it was requested to be done so. Especially to either issue some kind of summary report or worse to serve partisan political means. This is way too broad of an expansion of their powers. And also the powers of the President or individual members of Congress.

[Kara]

It's not funny that a serial rapist will be occupying a political office that masquerades as an independent judiciary for life.

[benjipwns]

Not as funny as Jason Whitlock as a Supreme Court Justice.

[benjipwns]

how did you all hide this from me

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/955485622914994176

[kingv]

The fbi is absolutely the right place to do it.

The Senate probably can’t even do it well or in a non-partisan way.

The FBI is the closest thing to a neutral arbiter untouched by political influence.

More importantly they do the background checks for all federal court nominees. This would seem to be part of Kavanaughs background.

Again, all the FBI can do here is interview her and him and say "this accusation was made against him in 2018, he denies it" which adds nothing to what the Senate already knows. And the public.

The FBI wasn't going to find an accusation never made in its six background checks. It doesn't become their investigative duty because they processed a background check to investigate this or anything else involving Kavanaugh as if it were a federal crime simply because it was requested to be done so. Especially to either issue some kind of summary report or worse to serve partisan political means. This is way too broad of an expansion of their powers. And also the powers of the President or individual members of Congress.

It’s not an expansion. They have done it before. I could say that talking to people about the person is arguably part of their background check. Like, when you get a background check for a clearance they actually interview people you know I have been interviewed many times for friends applying for clearance. Then depending on what type of clearance you are going for, they will actually try to identify people that you probably know that you didn’t list on your SF-86. They even give polygraphs for certain programs. It seems reasonable to do the same for a Supreme Court nominee. In my view, this is nothing the government doesn’t already do literally 10k+ annually for federal job seekers, and people renewing clearances.

The above examples are not handled by the FBI, but like the US Background Investigation department (or something like that). Maybe there’s an argument that they should also handle background investigations for federal judicial nominees, however, the FBI serves that role today.


I agree all they would do is interview Kavanaugh, his accusers, and other related parties and issue a summary of what everybody said. Senate testimony is a terrible format for doing that kind of summary work. When the Senate or House has issued these types of fact-based reports it has historically taken months to put everything together, write the report, and issue it.

[Joe Molotov]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/24/democrats-weaponize-judiciary-220530

Why did Democrats do this to the sanctity of our courts? *wrings hands*

[kingv]

Imagine if Republicans tried to fight Obamacare through the courts!

[TakingBackSunday]

Rosenstein is either resigning or getting fired today, it seems.

[james]

Rosenstein is either resigning or getting fired today, it seems.

Good

[TakingBackSunday]

 

why is that good

[kingv]

I believe James  is a trumper.

There was something he said earlier that made me think that might be the case.

[Mollys Fruity Loops]

[james]

I believe James  is a trumper.

There was something he said earlier that made me think that might be the case.

You have my confused with Benji

[kingv]

Benji is actually anti-everything.... but pro-fuckery.


Edit: looks like Kavanaugh accusers are up to four now. The Ford chick, the dick to the dome-piece chick, Avenatti’s gangbang chick, and somebody who made a criminal complaint in Maryland.... last two conceivably could be the same person.

[agrajag]

Benji is that post irony thing Etoilet warned us about.

[Great Rumbler]

Rosenstein is either resigning or getting fired today, it seems.

Looks like nothing's being decided today and that Trump and Rosenstein will hold a meeting on Thursday.

[Nintex]

I bet benji also thinks the FBI shouldn't have wiretapped the Trump campaign

They shouldn't have.

Why you ask? Because if they didn't get to Trump before he was elected POTUS what chance would they have pinning him on something after the election?
In office Trump could fire and appoint whoever he wanted. They were kinda lucky that his transition team was a complete mess. 

Plus without the FISA warrants half of the dozens of names of CIA/FBI/DOJ bigwigs wouldn't have been involved and thus would've been independent bystanders.
As of now basically all of them are tangled up in the same web and all they got was a lousy book deal. Because clearly spying on the Trump campaign didn't give them any sort of evidence or case to prosecute.
They ended up raiding Cohen's and Manaforts offices for stuff not even remotely related to the campaign anyway.

And now Rosenstein's head is on a platter and Rosenstein is the key to Mueller.
https://twitter.com/USATODAY/status/1044272257248448512

Jokingly plotting a coup might've seemed a good idea at the time but at this point there's no reason for Trump not to fire Rosenstein and even though Sessions 'recused' himself from the Russia thing...
He can hardly tell Trump he can't fire Rosenstein who according to the NYT offered to wear a wire to invoke the 25th. As was written in McGabe memos property of the FBI and Mueller's team.
Especially because after it 'leaked' he was quick to say he didn't make those comments and he didn't see a reason why the President should be removed.

All they can hope for is that Trump somehow fumbles this 'gift' that has been thrown onto his lap.
But throughout this episode most of these people have been acting like third rate 'The Apprentice' contestants undermining each other, leaking for petty revenge or simply dropping the ball.

[Nintex]

So the stuff that protects Mueller's investigation is still 'pending' in Congress and depending on Republican votes.
https://twitter.com/RepPerlmutter/status/1044273889461882881
 

[agrajag]

Repubs are playing with fire. They don't want a Constitutional crisis right before the midterms, they have enough on their plate trying to navigate the Kava-nyah confirmation.

[Boredfrom]

Is interesting how it changed from resign, to fired to “wait until Thursday”. Feels like they really wanted to paint this in certain way until they couldn’t, rather than feeding misinformation

[Nintex]

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer and former New York City mayor, told The Daily Beast on Monday afternoon that he agrees with Sekulow’s call for a cessation of the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, in the event of Rosenstein’s ouster—which was reported to be near as of Monday morning.

ResetEra better prepare their riot gear. He's crossing the red line.

 

[agrajag]

Trunp has to consult with his chief advisor Sran Hannity before making his final decision.

[Nintex]

Trump: "Rudy, you're my lawyer what should I do?"

Rudy: "Well there's two things you can do. You can fire the guy who's investigatin' you or you can launch a war with Iran."

Trump: "Why can't I do both?"

Rudy: "You'll need the troops at home hehehehehehe"

[james]

Is interesting how it changed from resign, to fired to “wait until Thursday”. Feels like they really wanted to paint this in certain way until they couldn’t, rather than feeding misinformation

Fire him during the SCOTUS hearing?

[Boredfrom]

Is interesting how it changed from resign, to fired to “wait until Thursday”. Feels like they really wanted to paint this in certain way until they couldn’t, rather than feeding misinformation

Fire him during the SCOTUS hearing?

You are saying this like Trump has any idea about optics in a long term way.

[Nintex]

In summary
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1044288635728744448

[Kara]

https://apnews.com/amp/31e2459c461543258af41311f1e63f74

[Kara]

Also, leper Nintex.

[team filler]

[Maiden Voyage]

So expect Rosenstein to be fired over Twitter before or after the meeting, as per Trump's MO. Also, that original story seems to me to have come from Trump's camp to give him an excuse to get rid of Rosenstein.
 

[agrajag]

Trump seems kind of cowardly. Has he ever fired someone in person before?

[team filler]

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/marthamaccallum/status/1044315614112862209
Taking a page from the Clinton playbook.

[kingv]

His wife likes it when he fish hooks her