pafret Loc: Northeast

First of all define your question. What is the list you are referring to and how was this list used in the selection, vetting process? What evidence do you have that the White House has somehow constrained the FBI inquiry to the "list." The FBI investigates criminal matters, violations of Federal law. It does not investigate State and local crimes. It also does not interrogate (they interview) any of the candidates for high appointed office, they do a background check to determine if there is some factor which would require the Judiciary Committee's interrogation and investigation.

Morgan

``````````````````````````
I always speak honestly, though it may not be what you see or agree with, as I will do here.


The victim has testified to 100%, not 99% that it was Kavanaugh. Recorded in her medical records at least six years ago. He recollection was verified by his own calendar! How do you call that zero recollection? Have you not listened to her testimony? Yes someone is not recalling correctly, or lying, more reason to investigate, a full investigation not one with chains. You don't think that would be the fair and just thing to do, if this cleared him, his reputation would then be completely restored, you tell me why does he not want that?

You also tell me, why are they so emphatic to swear Kavanaugh in rather than simply pick a new candidate. For Pete's sake look how at every turn Trump has been blocking the Russian investigation, from the very beginning, since Comey had revealed his suspicions. Now he wants to fire the person who heads the investigation, what do you need?

What I want is a nonpartisan SCJ, not one in the pocket of a party or president. Not one who wishes to change our constitution, but one who enforces it as written. I would also like a nonpartisan President, if that were possible he or she would have my support...and vote.

Morgan

No completely wrong, an investigation should NOT be with bias, where there are selected people who you are not allowed to follow. If this is what you said then you were incorrect on the other thread as well. You and others are simply believing the same dialog used by the right that this is a scam because that is all they have as a defense, that's very telling and a pretty damn poor excuse and defense. Why should we tolerate an unjust investigation, remember what goes around comes around, someday the right will be in a position that we are in now, so I would tread lightly.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Why should we tolerate character assassination by innuendo and not an investigation. In order to investigate, charges must be filed, of some criminal activity else what has been presented is orchestrated slander.

Morgan

The list includes people who are not allowed to be questioned. Vetting process? That's the whole point now, isn't it? If you want to question who the FBI investigates, go take it up with the Senate. They are the ones who requested it from the President who approved it. I do believe they know the Laws and rules for the FBI.




Some of the parameters of the new and limited FBI probe don’t include interviewing Julie Swetnick, a third accuser who alleged this week that he was at a party decades ago where she was gang-raped, according to a report on Saturday in the Wall Street Journal.

The outlet reported that the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are allowed to interview, instructions which translated to a “significant constraint” on the probe.


According to the NBC News’ report, if the FBI learns of others not on the pre-approved list who can corroborate witness’ accounts, it’s not clear whether agents will be able to reach out to them.

White House Counsel Don McGahn (pictured above), the Trump administration’s point person for Kavanaugh’s nomination, has also given the FBI a list of permitted witnesses to interview, NBC News reported. Two unnamed sources briefed on the matter told NBC News it was unclear whether the FBI would be able to contact additional individuals who may be able to corroborate existing interviewees’ claims, if they are not covered by the White House’s rules.

Unnamed people who “discussed the parameters” of the FBI’s background investigation told NBC News, in the network’s words, that the White House rules.

Unnamed people who “discussed the parameters” of the FBI’s background investigation told NBC News, in the network’s words, that the White House rules constituted “a significant constraint on the FBI investigation” and said they “may make it difficult to pursue additional leads.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/report-wh-limits-scope-of-fbis-kavanaugh-probe-including-list-of-allowed-interviews

Morgan

Yes, this is why an investigation is necessary. It is only slander if it is false.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Yeah, she said 100%. Yep, she said that, but doesn't remember where, when, or how. She doesn't remember what she did two months ago, and you don't see a problem here?

I think you might look at it differently if some random wench popped out an allegation against your husband for political reasons.

I think you're on the wrong side, and attempting to defend the indefensible.
Yeah......my opinion.....

Morgan

Interesting, very interesting, I'm defending the indefensible? I got news for ya, I originally thought as you do...yep, I did. I thought the timing was too perfect. You know what changed my mind...listening to her and then listening to him. This is an important seat, it is a Supreme Court judge and I would want a person to not only be as neutral as possible but to beyond reproach... by our constitution without bias and to the letter of the law. When a person comes into question, which Kavanaugh has, even without this case, I would move forward with someone else. If it were me, if I could, I would STOP the branches of our government to ever have a majority rule. I would have equal seats, and the people change but not the party seat, except for the one person... the President. I'm not sure if I've explained this clearly, but that's what I would do. No party should ever be the majority, and it wouldn't be two polar parties but five or maybe more, but to begin with Conservative, Republican, Liberal, Democrat, and independent/unaffiliated. You want to find fault with me on that so be it.

One other thing, I believe when the house or senate votes it should be a secret ballad in a box, that way people vote thier true conscience without party pressure. It doesn't take long to place a simple paper anonymous vote in a box and counted.

pafret Loc: Northeast

The existence of the list and the problem it entails for the FBI are attested to by unnamed source. My cousin Louie says unnamed source is an habitual liar and nothing he says is true. Louie's name, address and phone number are available and will be released as soon as unnamed source claims his statements in public.

Morgan

Yes, we shall see.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Beyond reproach......

Name a human who fits this description.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Could you tolerate such a man? Even Christ had enough reproaches such that they nailed Him to a cross-tree.

Morgan

so out of everything I said you come away with the wording of "beyond reproach" Like other things that can mean different things to different people, beyond reproach can range from perfection, immaculate which in one perspective doesn't exist and it can also mean
above suspicion, exemplary, impeccable, unsullied, you don't have much faith in people.

You before asked me a hypothetical, if it were my husband, but if you had listen to some of my replies you would know the answer, I would want an investigation to clear my name and thereby my reputation. Now I'll ask you, what if it was your daughter?

Morgan

What was his reproach, was it anything like taking advantage of a young inebriated girl? Or was his sins simply having a following the government wouldn't tolerate?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

What if it was my daughter?
Hmmmmmm.......if she came to me with it immediately after the alleged groping, sober, and distraught, I'd beat the hell out of the kid.
36 years later with not a word in between?
I'd tell her to suck it up, and move on.

Morgan, you, as well as I know th as t this is purely a political hit job. To play into this emotional garbage of soap opera antics is just not reasonable if you take a step back, and look at it.
It just doesn't pass the smell test. Matter of fact, it reeks so bad that a 55 gallon drum of concentrated Fbreeze couldn't cover it up.