Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source? (1 Viewer)

[Snarky Sack]

Even if the name of source is redacted?



This is from the FBI itself, not wild speculation. Providing evidence against the Biden family means risking death. Anyone care to connect the dots, there?

By saying that, do you think the FBI makes it less likely or more likely that people with knowledge of crimes by senior officials (of any political stripe) will come forward?

 

[J-DONK]

"Comparable" =/= "exactly the same."

See my sig.

That's not an answer. He made a great point, and you just deflect into jargon.

You made this thread, give an actual answer, or delete this moronic thread.

Everyone in here is brining up how inconsistent your logic has been with Republican vs Democrats. Every guttural rumor about Biden is True, but the Orange Shining Prince has never erred.

Either figure out an answer to your own blatant hypocrisy or GTFO.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's not an answer. He made a great point, and you just deflect into jargon.

You made this thread, give an actual answer, or delete this moronic thread.

Kinda bossy there, ain't ya?

Everyone in here is brining up how inconsistent your logic has been with Republican vs Democrats. Every guttural rumor about Biden is True, but the Orange Shining Prince has never erred.

Either figure out an answer to your own blatant hypocrisy or GTFO.

Oh, ok then. If you put it like that, what choice do I have.

Bye, everyone . . .

PFFFFFFFT!

I didn't ask you to explain how they are exactly the same, I asked how you think they are comparable.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Both are examples of unsupported allegations being presented as probative of a senior official's character.

The difference is apparently that a person can level allegations against a Republican senior official without it the FBI worrying that you will be killed.

Who do you thinks the FBI fears will sanction a hit on the guy who made the report? Only one poster has answered that so far.

 

[J-DONK]

Kinda bossy there, ain't ya?

Oh, ok then. If you put it like that, what choice do I have.

Bye, everyone . . .

PFFFFFFFT!

You are STILL deflecting.

I've come back with a different username to troll you once more with feeling.

 

[Incumbent]

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Both are examples of unsupported allegations being presented as probative of a senior official's character.

The difference is apparently that a person can level allegations against a Republican senior official without it the FBI worrying that you will be killed.

Who do you thinks the FBI fears will sanction a hit on the guy who made the report? Only one poster has answered that so far.

It's not obvious and I think that's a horrible take.

Anybody can make allegations to law enforcement about anything against anybody. That's entirely different from somebody stepping up publicly, in way that will be life changing and that poses a threat to her safety, and agreeing to be grilled in front of the world, under oath.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's a fair comment. But, you do understand why it makes me suspicous that you wouldn't say the same thing about a redacted FD1023 that simply said that Biden received bribes, and all other information was redacted.

There are a lot of suspicious people on this board. Not meaning you, but many of them don't get suspicious until a conversation doesn't go their way. I think what happens is that they ask a question, anticipating and answer based on a stereotype of a Trump supporter would say, and when I don't say that, it's suspicious.

If I ever get to see the FD1023 in its redacted for, I'll read what I can, look at the redactions, and make up my mind then. In light of your concerns, I will make an effort not to let the FBI's past with redactions influence that opinion on this one document, more than is warranted.

From what I've heard, it was Bill Barr who reported that, and he handed it off to a US attorney after he got it from Giuliani. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find something about that.

Grassley, in his interview with Fox where he said he wasn't interested in whether or not the allegations were true or not, was asked if he would release it to the public, and he said he'd release it to the public as soon as he got it.

Yes, not his finest moment. I believe he mispoke, but far be it from me to say what I think he really meant, when I've spent the morning being annoyed by people insisting they know what I really meant.

Would you agree, at least, that impeaching a president who took millions in bribes is significantly more important to the House than releasing unsupported allegations of that to the public?

Impeachment is more important than this one document, but the document could be part of the process. It would take much more than the public knows now to impeach, but how will the public or congress ever know?

An impeachment is different from a criminal trial in that the pre-trial part is supposed to be very public. The impeachment is analogous to the indictment and the Senate trial to a criminal trial. An impeachment vote is not something congress would ever want to spring on the public.

If there is information available now, and it is not classified, I still haven't gotten an answer on "why not release it?"

It's cute that you made a snarky comment about me making a personal attack earlier in this thread, but you have no problem making such attacks against people who dared speak out against Trump like Cohen and Vindman.

I believe yours was a personal attack was on me, and not on a public figure as was mine. I see an important difference as far as civil debate. But I don't insist that others think like I do.

Oh...and that misinterpretation...wasn't. He said exactly what happened, that Trump pressured Zelenskyy to investigate the Bidens, and withheld Congressionally approved funding as leverage. Remember, Trump is the first president in history to actually have members of his own party vote to remove him, and numerous other members of his party stated on the record that they believed the impeachment managers proved their case, but that it didn't warrant removal from office.

He's always had to deal with Never Trump Republicans so having other Reps vote against him isn't much evidence of anything. I guess agree to disagree or start a thread about the Zalensky phone call and I'll be happy to rehash it.

In all fairness, it's not "thinking" what a congress person's motivation is when they literally say they don't care if the allegations are true, they want to release the document to the public, they accuse the president of being a criminal and hold a press conference with "evidence" they admit they aren't sure if it's true, that doesn't implicate the president, and that doesn't even list any illegal activity. When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

Like I said, not his finest moment.

But that doesn't mean that the motivation of the entire congress is then to be discounted. Even if it was, it is the job of the voters to judge members of Congress motivation, not the FBI.

So, does that make it ok for others to do? And, at least you admit that it was unfounded, and didn't call it false....especially in light of the recent reports that the FBI at the time had reasons to believe that a witness who provided an alibi for Kavanaugh wasn't truthful and didn't investigate it.

An alibi? I don't remember that part of the story. I don't see Kavanaugh as needing an alibi for such a hokie accusation by such an obviously disturbed woman. If the FBI did not investigate it, my assumption would be it was because the Senate did not do as some Democrats asked and pause the confirmation process to give the FBI a chance to to that.

Strange that this FBI that was so pro-Hillary and now is so pro-Biden somehow may have worked to cover up a credible allegation against a Trump nominated SCOTUS candidate. Maybe the FBI just works to support whoever is in office.

If the FBI had gotten the chance to investigate, I don't think they would have done a Trump-like hit job on him, nor a Clinton/Biden-like protection job on him. I think they would be pretty neutral about a USSC Justice. Just speculating. I think they care very much about Trump not being president again and have worked seven years to get rid of him.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You are STILL deflecting.

I've come back with a different username to troll you once more with feeling.

LoL! You have? Who were you before?

I haven't been here that long to have driven a poster off and had him come back to haunt me like that.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's not obvious and I think that's a horrible take.

Anybody can make allegations to law enforcement about anything against anybody. That's entirely different from somebody stepping up publicly, in way that will be life changing and that poses a threat to her safety, and agreeing to be grilled in front of the world, under oath.

Yes, there is a difference. I would disagree with "entirely different."

Maybe the person would be willing to step up.

Would he be safe if he did?

Should he tell the FBI, "you're not really worried about my life. You just don't want me to step up."

I'm not sure how life changing it was for Blasey-Ford. Did she ever write a book about her "ordeal?"

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Republicans are trying the EXACT SAME THING they tried in 2019, the only difference is that the Senate is now committed to the plan. They don't have to send out operatives to acquire fabricated evidence, they just need to re-introduce the "evidence" that Barr already dismissed as a fugazi. They know their voters will eat it up because their voters have shown them that they find Russians more credible than the so called "Deep State".

 

[FullMonte]

Impeachment is more important than this one document, but the document could be part of the process. It would take much more than the public knows now to impeach, but how will the public or congress ever know?

Ok, let me reword my question to make it clearer. If this document is legitimate evidence of Biden and his family accepting millions in bribe money, that should lead to an impeachment, correct? After all, if it's evidence of criminal activity, and the GOP has the House majority, articles of impeachment should pass easily, correct? And, if it is not legitimate evidence, and is not corroborated, Congress releasing the document to the public, and accusing Biden of being a criminal would be improper, and a political hit job, right?

An alibi? I don't remember that part of the story. I don't see Kavanaugh as needing an alibi for such a hokie accusation by such an obviously disturbed woman. If the FBI did not investigate it, my assumption would be it was because the Senate did not do as some Democrats asked and pause the confirmation process to give the FBI a chance to to that.

Now, I'm not sure if "alibi" is the correct word, but in short, Deborah Ramirez alleged that Kavanaugh assaulted her in a very similar manner as Blassey-Ford alleged. The FBI spoke with a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale (Joseph Smith), who clarified that Ramirez was mistaken, and that it was not Kavanaugh who assaulted her, it was another student named Jack Maxey, who had a reputation of such things, and Smith included a photo of Maxey doing something similar at another time. The FBI was satisfied that it was a case of mistaken identity, and did not go any further. Had they spent a few moments questioning Maxey, they would have learned something interesting. On the date of Ramirez alleged attack, Maxey was still a senior in high school, in a different location, and was nowhere near Yale.

But, the FBI that was out to get Trump, apparently, didn't bother to do the minimalist follow up on a criminal allegation against a SCOTUS nominee.
( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...gation-omissions-senate-sexual-assault-claims )

If the FBI had gotten the chance to investigate, I don't think they would have done a Trump-like hit job on him, nor a Clinton/Biden-like protection job on him. I think they would be pretty neutral about a USSC Justice. Just speculating. I think they care very much about Trump not being president again and have worked seven years to get rid of him.

To make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you are saying....are you trying to say that had the FBI followed up with witnesses to verify their stories, that would be a Trump-like hit job? Or, are you saying that you think that fully investigating criminal allegations is a "hit job"?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Ok, let me reword my question to make it clearer. If this document is legitimate evidence of Biden and his family accepting millions in bribe money, that should lead to an impeachment, correct?

No.

Not just this one document. A statement to the FBI is "evidence" only in the most general sense. If it was a sworn statement, then it is closer to evidence. But any evidence used in an impeachment would need to sworn to in front of congress, with a chance for Democrats to cross-examine.

What this document would be, if the FBI did not withhold it, is one document in the congressional investigation of possible Biden bribery. That investigation might lead to impeachment.

After all, if it's evidence of criminal activity, and the GOP has the House majority, articles of impeachment should pass easily, correct? And, if it is not legitimate evidence, and is not corroborated, Congress releasing the document to the public, and accusing Biden of being a criminal would be improper, and a political hit job, right?

You're making it an either/or, when it is not. It is indeed some level of evidence of of criminal activity - assuming it is as described.

If congress released it to the public, the public would be justified if they thought that it was politically motivated and not some unbiased dedication to law and order. I don't believe that malarkey when the Dems claim it of the DOJ/FBI, and I don't believe it of Republicans.

But that is congress' decision knowing that the voters are watching, not the decision of the FBI.

Now, I'm not sure if "alibi" is the correct word, but in short, Deborah Ramirez alleged that Kavanaugh assaulted her in a very similar manner as Blassey-Ford alleged. The FBI spoke with a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale (Joseph Smith), who clarified that Ramirez was mistaken, and that it was not Kavanaugh who assaulted her, it was another student named Jack Maxey, who had a reputation of such things, and Smith included a photo of Maxey doing something similar at another time.

I vaguely remember that. My main thought was "by Allah, this is the most asinine thing I ever heard! Of course people are going to come out of the woodwork, and more will come if we encourage them."

The FBI was satisfied that it was a case of mistaken identity, and did not go any further. Had they spent a few moments questioning Maxey, they would have learned something interesting. On the date of Ramirez alleged attack, Maxey was still a senior in high school, in a different location, and was nowhere near Yale

Suppose they did do that interview and decided to drop the Maxey angle as a legit lead. But . . . if they had only spent a few moments questioning Maxey's guidance counselor, they would have learned something interesting. On the date or Ramirez alleged attack, Maxey was on a college visitation trip for High School seniors staying in the same dorm as Ramirez!

I remember thinking, "I can't believe grown ups are going through this he said/she said telephone game childish nonsense!"

But, the FBI that was out to get Trump, apparently, didn't bother to do the minimalist follow up on a criminal allegation against a SCOTUS nominee.
( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...gation-omissions-senate-sexual-assault-claims )

As I alluded to, I don't think that the FBI was allotted time to investigate Kavanaugh. And even if they had, I don't think they would have seen him as an enemy. They do not see Pence as an enemy, obviously.

To make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you are saying....are you trying to say that had the FBI followed up with witnesses to verify their stories, that would be a Trump-like hit job? Or, are you saying that you think that fully investigating criminal allegations is a "hit job"?

No. I did not say that. This is where we have misunderstandings, FullMonte, when you say "are you saying . . . " and then give your own interpretation which is not what I said.

What I did say looks plain enough to me:

If the FBI had gotten the chance to investigate, I don't think they would have done a Trump-like hit job on him, nor a Clinton/Biden-like protection job on him. I think they would be pretty neutral about a USSC Justice. Just speculating. I think they care very much about Trump not being president again and have worked seven years to get rid of him.

If you want to ask, "what is your definition of a Trump-like hit job?" I'll try to answer.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You are STILL deflecting.

I've come back with a different username to troll you once more with feeling.

LoL! You have? Who were you before?

I haven't been here that long to have driven a poster off and had him come back to haunt me like that.

J-Donk, I think I misunderstood you. You mean that you've come back with a different username to toll me once more with feeling, right?

Mind if I take a guess?

 

[FullMonte]

No.

Not just this one document. A statement to the FBI is "evidence" only in the most general sense. If it was a sworn statement, then it is closer to evidence. But any evidence used in an impeachment would need to sworn to in front of congress, with a chance for Democrats to cross-examine.

What this document would be, if the FBI did not withhold it, is one document in the congressional investigation of possible Biden bribery. That investigation might lead to impeachment.

You're making it an either/or, when it is not. It is indeed some level of evidence of of criminal activity - assuming it is as described.

If congress released it to the public, the public would be justified if they thought that it was politically motivated and not some unbiased dedication to law and order. I don't believe that malarkey when the Dems claim it of the DOJ/FBI, and I don't believe it of Republicans.

So, after all of that, I have one final question. If it is an uncorrobrated allegation, and Congress has not determined it to be true…can you think of any reason to release it publicly other than to make Biden look bad?

I vaguely remember that. My main thought was "by Allah, this is the most asinine thing I ever heard! Of course people are going to come out of the woodwork, and more will come if we encourage them."

Suppose they did do that interview and decided to drop the Maxey angle as a legit lead.

If they had done the interview, and found out that Maxey was not there, it’s not a case of them dropping the angle as a legit lead. It’s a case of them determining that someone who “came out of the woodwork” to provide evidence to support kavanaugh had lied to them, which SHOULD lead a competent investigator to question why someone came forward specifically to lie to them in defense of someone.

But . . . if they had only spent a few moments questioning Maxey's guidance counselor, they would have learned something interesting. On the date or Ramirez alleged attack, Maxey was on a college visitation trip for High School seniors staying in the same dorm as Ramirez!

Then they would have found supporting evidence that a witness was telling the truth.

As I alluded to, I don't think that the FBI was allotted time to investigate Kavanaugh.

Would you agree that since McConnell set the precedent that a SCOTUS seat could sit empty for 9 months so they did not have to confirm an Obama nominee, that the White House putting a short time constraint on the FBI to investigate allegations of criminal activity by someone being considered for a lifelong appointment as one of our ultimate arbiters of the law was improper?

And even if they had, I don't think they would have seen him as an enemy. They do not see Pence as an enemy, obviously.

Is that how you see the FBI? The people they investigate are enemies?

No. I did not say that. This is where we have misunderstandings, FullMonte, when you say "are you saying . . . " and then give your own interpretation which is not what I said.

That is exactly why I say “are you saying” and then state how your statement was interpreted by me. So I can get clarification of whether or not I misinterpreted what you said. It’s nothing more than that.

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, after all of that, I have one final question. If it is an uncorrobrated allegation, and Congress has not determined it to be true…can you think of any reason to release it publicly other than to make Biden look bad?

To keep the public informed of their efforts to gather information about possible crimes by the executive branch.

Simple transparency.

If they had done the interview, and found out that Maxey was not there, it’s not a case of them dropping the angle as a legit lead. It’s a case of them determining that someone who “came out of the woodwork” to provide evidence to support kavanaugh had lied to them, which SHOULD lead a competent investigator to question why someone came forward specifically to lie to them in defense of someone.

Wheels within wheels, I see.

Then they would have found supporting evidence that a witness was telling the truth.

You're envisioning a full-blown FBI investigation into the allegations. The Senate made that almost impossible by not delaying the confirmation as the Dems asked them to do.

Would you agree that since McConnell set the precedent that a SCOTUS seat could sit empty for 9 months so they did not have to confirm an Obama nominee, that the White House putting a short time constraint on the FBI to investigate allegations of criminal activity by someone being considered for a lifelong appointment as one of our ultimate arbiters of the law was improper?

No, because the allegations were not nearly credible enough to warrant that.

FWIW, I would say the same about any delay in the progress of governance if someone tried to hold it up based on the FD-1023 we're talking about.

Suppose the Senate had taken a 90 day pause to investigate. That ninety day deadline would have been well announced in the news. Suppose on the 88th day, the FBI reported they could not validate any of the allegations. But then - on day 89, another woman comes out with a tearful story, maybe worse like Kavanaugh not only raped her but forced her to get an abortion when she got pregnant?

Another 90 days?

Is that how you see the FBI? The people they investigate are enemies?

In too many cases. Not the FBI overall, but too much of it is now consumed with the various components of "Operation Get Trump."

Do you think that is a change? Have you not read about the FBI's treatment of MLK?

That is exactly why I say “are you saying” and then state how your statement was interpreted by me. So I can get clarification of whether or not I misinterpreted what you said. It’s nothing more than that.

No, I don't mean you have nefarious intent. I'm just saying that it gets confusing, especially when you do it so often. If you truly don't understand what I meant, maybe ask for clarification instead of putting your own interpretation on it and asking for yes or no to that interpretation.

Just a request, do as you like of course.

 

[FullMonte]

To keep the public informed of their efforts to gather information about possible crimes by the executive branch.

So, again, we are back to "The court document filed by the FBI spelling out very specific evidence that the FBI claims to have, and witness testimony that was given to a grand jury is 'Operation Get Trump' by a lying FBI," but congress releasing uncorroborated allegations of crimes by Biden is "informing the public about efforts to gather information about possible crimes by the executive branch."

You're envisioning a full-blown FBI investigation into the allegations. The Senate made that almost impossible by not delaying the confirmation as the Dems asked them to do.

No, because the allegations were not nearly credible enough to warrant that.

And how was the FBI able to determine the allegations were not credible if, as you say, the Senate didn't give them the time do investigate?

I'd also say that if there was an allegation of a similar attack by Kavanaugh, and one of his friends ran to the FBI to provide "evidence" that it was a case of mistaken identity, only to find out that friend was lying to the FBI...that would lend credibility to the allegation. After all, if the attack didn't actually happen, why did the friend feel the need to lie and provide a fake alibi?

FWIW, I would say the same about any delay in the progress of governance if someone tried to hold it up based on the FD-1023 we're talking about.

Suppose the Senate had taken a 90 day pause to investigate. That ninety day deadline would have been well announced in the news. Suppose on the 88th day, the FBI reported they could not validate any of the allegations. But then - on day 89, another woman comes out with a tearful story, maybe worse like Kavanaugh not only raped her but forced her to get an abortion when she got pregnant?

Another 90 days?

Well..again, republicans were content to let a seat sit empty for 9 months just so they didn't have to take up a nominee that Obama put up. 180 days doesn't seem that long.

Here's my opinon on this whole matter, as clear as I can be. When we are appointing someone to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, every effort should be taken to ensure that there is NOTHING that could give even the appearance of impropriety. We are only talking about 9 people in total, we should be able to find that many experienced federal judges with no skeletons in the closet....or closets that could contain skeletons.

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, again, we are back to "The court document filed by the FBI spelling out very specific evidence that the FBI claims to have, and witness testimony that was given to a grand jury is 'Operation Get Trump' by a lying FBI," but congress releasing uncorroborated allegations of crimes by Biden is "informing the public about efforts to gather information about possible crimes by the executive branch."

I believe I agreed, maybe in a couple of different posts, that releasing the FD-1023 pertaining to the sitting president by members of the opposition party would be a highly political move by Congress.

Do you say the same of about the indictment of the Front Runner in a presidential election in which the DOJ and FBI are under the full control of Democrats, including mid-level and high level supervisor who came to power during the Obama administration and include many maxed-out donors to the DNC and Democrat candidates?

And how was the FBI able to determine the allegations were not credible if, as you say, the Senate didn't give them the time do investigate?

Turning over a copy of the FD-1023 would not stop the FBI from investigating. It might even motivate them to make sure the investigation is complete, congress then being able to fulfill its oversight function.

I'd also say that if there was an allegation of a similar attack by Kavanaugh, and one of his friends ran to the FBI to provide "evidence" that it was a case of mistaken identity, only to find out that friend was lying to the FBI...that would lend credibility to the allegation. After all, if the attack didn't actually happen, why did the friend feel the need to lie and provide a fake alibi?

Did the friend lie, or was he struggling to piece together something that happened between two other people that he knew, prompted by an accusation that came thirty-six years after the fact?

Well..again, republicans were content to let a seat sit empty for 9 months just so they didn't have to take up a nominee that Obama put up. 180 days doesn't seem that long.

At what point, if any, do you realize that Democrats are just coming out of the woodwork to affect a stall?

I think you are making a false comparison with this nine months business. If that set any precedent, it was that the party in the majority can stall opposition nominations if the next presidential election is due that same year.

The Democrats tried to set the precedent with Kavanaugh, that if there is a USSC nominee that they really don't like, i.e. any nominated by a Republican, they just have to wait for the inevitable accusation from a feminist professor and use that as a stall.

You should be very happy that it did not work. Because sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and with that precedent, you know what kind of men would be willing to be nominated to the USSC by either party? The Donald Trumps, the Bill Clintons and the Ted Kennedys of the world, who reputation as sexually debauched is so established that such an accusation would mean nothing.

Here's my opinon on this whole matter, as clear as I can be. When we are appointing someone to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, every effort should be taken to ensure that there is NOTHING that could give even the appearance of impropriety. We are only talking about 9 people in total, we should be able to find that many experienced federal judges with no skeletons in the closet....or closets that could contain skeletons.

All closets could contain skeletons. Especially if an out of left field, thirty-six years after the fact, no evidence accusation by a person with clear political motive counts as a skeleton in one's closet.

 

[FullMonte]

I believe I agreed, maybe in a couple of different posts, that releasing the FD-1023 pertaining to the sitting president by members of the opposition party would be a highly political move by Congress.

Do you say the same of about the indictment of the Front Runner in a presidential election in which the DOJ and FBI are under the full control of Democrats, including mid-level and high level supervisor who came to power during the Obama administration and include many maxed-out donors to the DNC and Democrat candidates?

Not even a little bit. The indictment was not released by someone with the intent of dirtying up that person's political opponent, nor was it done with no concern whether it was true or not. The indictment is a document that was done after a grand jury of randomly selected citizens heard/saw the evidence, and determine that there was enough evidence to say there was probable cause that a crime was committed.

Turning over a copy of the FD-1023 would not stop the FBI from investigating. It might even motivate them to make sure the investigation is complete, congress then being able to fulfill its oversight function.

You were talking about the allegations against Kavanaugh not being credible. I was asking how the FBI could determine they weren't credible without conducting a complete investigation.

But, that does make me think about something. When I asked about a possible reason for Congress to release a document containing unverified allegations against Biden, you said "To keep the public informed of their efforts to gather information about possible crimes by the executive branch." When did investigating crimes become the purview of Congress? Is that was "oversight over the DOJ" means?

Did the friend lie, or was he struggling to piece together something that happened between two other people that he knew, prompted by an accusation that came thirty-six years after the fact?

It's hard to envision a scenario where the friend is struggling to piece together something that happened between two people he knew, and then ran to the FBI unprompted to tell them "It wasn't him, it was this other guy, and here's a photo of the other guy doing something similar." If he was struggling to piece something together, why would he go to the FBI with the information that he was unsure of?

I think you are making a false comparison with this nine months business. If that set any precedent, it was that the party in the majority can stall opposition nominations if the next presidential election is due that same year.

I don't think I am. If a SCOTUS seat can sit empty for 9 months, it's hard to understand why they can't wait a few extra weeks to ensure that these allegations are credible.

You should be very happy that it did not work. Because sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and with that precedent, you know what kind of men would be willing to be nominated to the USSC by either party? The Donald Trumps, the Bill Clintons and the Ted Kennedys of the world, who reputation as sexually debauched is so established that such an accusation would mean nothing.

Unless, again, presidents and congress start treating the Supreme Court like the hallowed ground it should be, in which case someone who's reputation was established like that would never even be considered as a nominee, and would be about a 30 second hearing before a "NO" vote if they were nominated.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Not even a little bit. The indictment was not released by someone with the intent of dirtying up that person's political opponent,

The indictment doesn't dirty up Biden's political opponent?

nor was it done with no concern whether it was true or not.

Agree to disagree.

The indictment is a document that was done after a grand jury of randomly selected citizens heard/saw the evidence, and determine that there was enough evidence to say there was probable cause that a crime was committed.

Grand juries are tools of the prosecution who see one side of the story.

You were talking about the allegations against Kavanaugh not being credible. I was asking how the FBI could determine they weren't credible without conducting a complete investigation.

They conducted as complete an investigation as they could, give time constraints. That in no way makes them guilty of politicizing the investigation. You may have noticed that I am more than willing to criticize the FBI. But only when the criticism is warranted. Criticizing them for not being thorough enough in a short time investigating Karavaugh rape allegations so obviously nefariously motivated is not such an example.

But, that does make me think about something. When I asked about a possible reason for Congress to release a document containing unverified allegations against Biden, you said "To keep the public informed of their efforts to gather information about possible crimes by the executive branch." When did investigating crimes become the purview of Congress?

When the framers put these words into the constitution:

• Clause 5 Impeachment
• The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Is that was "oversight over the DOJ" means?

Is that what I said it means?

It's hard to envision a scenario where the friend is struggling to piece together something that happened between two people he knew, and then ran to the FBI unprompted to tell them "It wasn't him, it was this other guy, and here's a photo of the other guy doing something similar." If he was struggling to piece something together, why would he go to the FBI with the information that he was unsure of?

Was he convicted of giving false information to the FBI?

I don't think I am. If a SCOTUS seat can sit empty for 9 months, it's hard to understand why they can't wait a few extra weeks to ensure that these allegations are credible.

I find it very easy to understand.

Unless, again, presidents and congress start treating the Supreme Court like the hallowed ground it should be, in which case someone who's reputation was established like that would never even be considered as a nominee, and would be about a 30 second hearing before a "NO" vote if they were nominated.

You missed my point. If every USSC nominee must be subjected to accusers coming out of the wood work followed by investigations to take up to nine months regardless of how little there is to investigate, and the accusers are allowed to tag team, so that when one accusation fails, the next one it presented and the clock starts again, then only men who do not care about their reputations will be willing to be nominees.

 

[CoolBrees]

Hey Sack of RoofBeachFarb - if grand juries are so easily duped during the indictment phase by prosecutors making one sided arguments, how do they have over a 95% prosecution rate?

Hopefully your fat draft dodging boy’s heart pops like a zit so he can room with Limbaugh and Pat Robertson in hell.