LogFAQs > #909043878

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 192: Manafort and a Storm
xp1337 09/19/18 8:48:12 AM #404:	I - regrettably - read through most of what I missed here and what sticks out to me is that this whole thing seems spun out of taking something Ulti said at face value when, surprise, he's wrong. Ford hasn't outright refused to testify. As far as I can tell, no wording by the lawyer says she absolutely won't show on Monday. What it was was saying there should be an FBI investigation to provide information before the hearing. Key word there being "should." Now, granted, such an investigation will almost certainly not happen. I've seen conflicting reporting on the FBI's protocol here so I can't say I'm 100% sure on this, but the best impression I've gotten is that their background checks for presidential appointees go back 10 years (or Age 18, whatever is sooner.) To go further back sounds like they'd need a request from the WH. Which obviously won't happen since Trump has already lied about the FBI "not wanting to be involved" (The FBI responded saying they did not tell Trump or anyone in the WH anything of the sort.) The lawyer also states that aside from the point about Republicans picking Monday as the date without consulting Ford or her lawyer, that Republicans apparently wanted her to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh. Basically, they loaded up this offer with poison pills in the hopes she won't show because that's their only real play here. The whole thing strikes me as Ford's lawyer giving her own condition for the hearing, which would normally be something negotiated before setting the hearing but again, Republicans are acting in complete bad faith and unilaterally set the terms to intentionally discourage her attending. She may not attend, given everything swirling around this, and I think that's understandable, but nothing I've seen yet indicates it's been decided 100% either way. I'd probably lean in the direction that she doesn't appear with the information out right now, but Republicans are leaning hard into their spin here so it's comprising most of the news about this. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:909043878] in Politics C... [t:77003127]...</cite> <quote>I - regrettably - read through most of what I missed here and what sticks out to me is that this whole thing seems spun out of taking something Ulti said at face value when, surprise, he's wrong. Ford hasn't outright refused to testify. As far as I can tell, no wording by the lawyer says she absolutely won't show on Monday. What it was was saying there should be an FBI investigation to provide information before the hearing. Key word there being "should." Now, granted, such an investigation will almost certainly not happen. I've seen conflicting reporting on the FBI's protocol here so I can't say I'm 100% sure on this, but the best impression I've gotten is that their background checks for presidential appointees go back 10 years (or Age 18, whatever is sooner.) To go further back sounds like they'd need a request from the WH. Which obviously won't happen since Trump has already lied about the FBI "not wanting to be involved" (The FBI responded saying they did not tell Trump or anyone in the WH anything of the sort.) The lawyer also states that aside from the point about Republicans picking Monday as the date without consulting Ford or her lawyer, that Republicans apparently wanted her to sit at the same table as Kavanaugh. Basically, they loaded up this offer with poison pills in the hopes she won't show because that's their only real play here. The whole thing strikes me as Ford's lawyer giving her own condition for the hearing, which would normally be something negotiated before setting the hearing but again, Republicans are acting in complete bad faith and unilaterally set the terms to intentionally discourage her attending. She may not attend, given everything swirling around this, and I think that's understandable, but nothing I've seen yet indicates it's been decided 100% either way. I'd probably lean in the direction that she doesn't appear with the information out right now, but Republicans are leaning hard into their spin here so it's comprising most of the news about this. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1