US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[aygart]

If you don't understand how this scenario benefits him and against her then no need to discuss this further. 

That was an example not a position.

[aygart]

There wasn't at the time but now there is. Then now have who, what, when and where.

Yet stated that they were waiting for instuctions fropm WH IIRC.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

That was an example not a position.

I guess you do understand this then:

It is telling that all your posts are against her and for him.

Posts is not the same as position but I see why you want to twist it.

[Dawie]

You mean like helping getting Trump get elected?

yes, if that what you mean by totally messing everything up by playing both sides and being apolitical at the same time

i dont think anyone in America including you believes an investigation is even possible
forget about fair and unbaised

[ChaimMoskowitz]

i dont think anyone in America including you believes an investigation is even possible
forget about fair and unbaised

I have full faith in the FBI conducting a fair investigation.

[Yammer]

There wasn't at the time but now there is.

Can you explain why?

Yet stated that they were waiting for instuctions fropm WH IIRC.

What's that supposed to mean? Link?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Can you explain why?

When the letter was originally turned over it was anonymous. Many important details were missing. Now they have the info they need to conduct a proper investigation.

[aygart]

I guess you do understand this then:Posts is not the same as position but I see why you want to twist it.

You are being ridiculous. My position on this is the same as yours other than to want to avoid polygraph. Maybe I give some more credence to some of the questions causing skepticism, but that is well in lne with my longstanding cynicism of politicians.

[aygart]

When the letter was originally turned over it was anonymous. Many important details were missing. Now they have the info they need to conduct a proper investigation.

The letter itself was anonymous?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The letter itself was anonymous?

No, the author of the letter.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You are being ridiculous. My position on this is the same as yours other than to want to avoid polygraph. Maybe I give some more credence to some of the questions causing skepticism, but that is well in lne with my longstanding cynicism of politicians.

If you say your position is the same as mine I accept that. That does not change the fact that your post are pro K like I stated and gave an example of.

[aygart]

If you say your position is the same as mine I accept that. That does not change the fact that your post are pro K like I stated and gave an example of.

Because I wrote one post where the example given was in one direction? I also wrote how she should not be subjected to the political circus. that goes the other direction. Maybe it was because I answered a question you had?

[aygart]

No, the author of the letter.

The letter did not say who the author was or was it just that Feinstein didn't release the name? Did Feinstein know who the accuser was when she started with this? It was implied that she did but just wasn't releasing it. If so the FBI also had the info already then.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Because I wrote one post where the example given was in one direction?

Maybe two posts show a pattern? 

Even if they are reliable, it only shows that she believes it now which can be a mistaken memory after all these years.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

The letter did not say who the author was or was it just that Feinstein didn't release the name? Did Feinstein know who the accuser was when she started with this? It was implied that she did but just wasn't releasing it. If so the FBI also had the info already then.

I thought she redacted it from the letter but could be wrong.

[Yammer]

When the letter was originally turned over it was anonymous. Many important details were missing. Now they have the info they need to conduct a proper investigation.

The letter itself was anonymous?

I thought she redacted it from the letter but could be wrong.

My understanding is that her name was there but was withheld.

[aygart]

I thought she redacted it from the letter but could be wrong.

Why would she redact it when sending to the FBI?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Why would she redact it when sending to the FBI?

Ask her if that what has happened.

[aygart]

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-statement-on-the-supreme-court-nomination

Grassley Statement on the Supreme Court Nomination
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley issued the following statement regarding the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
 
“Anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard, so I will continue working on a way to hear her out in an appropriate, precedented and respectful manner.
 
“The standard procedure for updates to any nominee’s background investigation file is to conduct separate follow-up calls with relevant parties. In this case, that would entail phone calls with at least Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. Consistent with that practice, I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups. Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up.
 
“Unfortunately, committee Republicans have only known this person's identity from news reports for less than 24 hours and known about her allegations for less than a week. Senator Feinstein, on the other hand, has had this information for many weeks and deprived her colleagues of the information necessary to do our jobs. The Minority withheld even the anonymous allegations for six weeks, only to later decide that they were serious enough to investigate on the eve of the committee vote, after the vetting process had been completed.
 
“It’s deeply disturbing that the existence of these allegations were leaked in a way that seemed to preclude Dr. Ford’s confidentiality.
 
“Over my nearly four decades in the Senate I have worked diligently to protect whistleblowers and get to the bottom of any issue. Dr. Ford’s attorney could have approached my office, while keeping her client confidential and anonymous, so that these allegations could be thoroughly investigated. Nevertheless, we are working diligently to get to the bottom of these claims.”

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1041725321123385344

The main things making me question the credibility of the accusations has been the way the Dems have dealt with them. They seem to want to keep it as innuendo. The accuser, on the other hand, does seem credible.