[Chas_P]

hrothgar, on 2018-September-19, 06:28, said:

Must say, I find Christine Blasey Ford's insistence that the FBI needs to investigate the alleged sexual assault before she testifies to be confusing.

I don't mean to discount her allegations which I find highly credible, but, its unclear what an FBI investigation of this specific incident would turn up.

I agree. Why should the FBI investigate? No crime victim, regardless of credibility, gets to dictate the terms of the investigation. The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations on sexual assault crimes. So if she's truly seeking justice for a 36 year-old crime, rather than just being a pawn for Feinstein et al, that avenue is always open; of course she would have to prove her case. Whatever the outcome, Dr. Blasey will come out OK. Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed and she will be a martyr who can command big speaking fees, maybe a book deal, and the solemn pride that must be hers to know that she has besmirched the reputation of a truly decent man.

[johnu]

Chas_P, on 2018-September-19, 18:14, said:

I agree. Why should the FBI investigate?

Because that's the FBI's job to do background checks on high level Federal appointments. This was something that apparently did not come up in the initial FBI check into Kavanaugh's background. Should the FBI not have done a background search on Kavanaugh when he was first nominated This would be a reopening of the initial background check which apparently did not uncover this attempted rape incident on their first check.

This would not be a criminal investigation. In case you want to be slow on the intake, I repeat. This would not be a criminal investigation.


Any potential witnesses would be interviewed under oath. Professor Ford has named 2 other people who were at the part according to the Washington Post. Don't you think that those 2 people should tell their recollections under oath? If not, why not?

If somebody else remembers Kavanaugh at that party that he categorically denies not even attending *, what does that say about Kavanaugh's credibility?

* He could have said he didn't remember, or maybe he was drunk and didn't remember. He chose to categorically deny he was present at that party

[Chas_P]

johnu, on 2018-September-19, 18:31, said:

In case you want to be slow on the intake

John, let me preface this by saying that after long and careful consideration I have been unable to come up with one thing on Earth that I consider less significant than your opinion of me; actually your attempted insults are laughable. With that said I will repeat what I said earlier. Read it carefully. In no case does the victim of a a crime...no matter how credible or sympathetic...get to dictate the terms of the investigation.

[johnu]

Chas_P, on 2018-September-19, 19:15, said:

John, let me preface this by saying that after long and careful consideration I have been unable to come up with one thing on Earth that I consider less significant than your opinion of me; actually your attempted insults are laughable. With that said I will repeat what I said earlier. Read it carefully. In no case does the victim of a a crime...no matter how credible or sympathetic...get to dictate the terms of the investigation.

I was pretty sure you wouldn't understand the concept that the reopening of the FBI background check was not a criminal investigation.

As to whether it is the FBI's job to do reopen a background check on a Supreme Court nominee, you only have to go back to the Clarence Thomas nomination and Anita Hill's accusations. In that case, the White House under President George HW Bush immediately ordered the FBI to reopen the background check of Thomas and the FBI conducted a (cursory) investigation in 3 days. And then there were the Anita Hill hearings that most everybody is familiar with.

Here's how the FBI investigated Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas

Back in 1991, Senators Grassley and Hatch were on the record as being in favor of reopening the FBI background check process.

There are serious accusations about Kavanaugh's character. I would think that if nothing really happened, he would be the first one to demand FBI involvement so the truth would come out. Apparently I am wrong about that particular point.

Note: Lying to the FBI is a crime as everybody has been reminded of from Mueller's investigation. One person is calling for the FBI to investigate. And the other, ???

[johnu]

Spanish Official: Dennison Suggested Building a Wall Across the Sahara

Finally, Dennison comes up with a stable genius idea. That will surely keep illegal immigrants out of Spain.

Map of Sahara desert

[barmar]

Chas_P, on 2018-September-19, 18:14, said:

I agree. Why should the FBI investigate? No crime victim, regardless of credibility, gets to dictate the terms of the investigation. The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations on sexual assault crimes. So if she's truly seeking justice for a 36 year-old crime, rather than just being a pawn for Feinstein et al, that avenue is always open; of course she would have to prove her case. Whatever the outcome, Dr. Blasey will come out OK. Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed and she will be a martyr who can command big speaking fees, maybe a book deal, and the solemn pride that must be hers to know that she has besmirched the reputation of a truly decent man.

The Senate wants Dr. Ford to testify. If all we get is testimony from her and Kavanaugh, it will just be he-said-she-said, and the GOP senators are clearly biased in his favor.

She doesn't have the resources to investigate the incident herself, all she has is her own recollections, and trying to impress the senators with her integrity, which obviously isn't enough. The FBI, on the other hand, has dozens of investigators. If the senate needs corroborating evidence for either of the parties' claims, they're the ones to get it.

All she's asking is for the Senate to be responsible in handling the accusation, rather than just conducting a pro forma hearing.

[kenberg]

Everyone brings their own perspective to the sexual assault issue. A WaPo story this morning reports some details about the possibility of mis-identification.

Quote

Ed Whelan, a former clerk to the late justice Antonin Scalia and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, pointed to floor plans, online photographs and other information to suggest a location for the house party in suburban Maryland that Ford described. He also named and posted photographs of the classmate he suggested could be responsible.
Ford dismissed Whelan’s theory in a statement late Thursday: “I knew them both, and socialized with” the other classmate, Ford said, adding that she had once visited him in the hospital. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”

Ok, this possibility has to be considered. Where does this lead us? To Mark Judge, obviously. And to the FBI, who can forcefully ask "Ok, which dude was it?". Of course we only have Ford's word for it that Judge was there, maybe she mis-identified him. Who knows, maybe she mis-identified herself, we only have her word for it that she was the one on the bed.

This really has nothing to do with Ford "directing the investigation". It has everything to do with "Do we or do we not want to know what happened?". And if the Rs just ram this through, I think people can work out the answer to that one.

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2018-September-21, 05:35, said:

Everyone brings their own perspective to the sexual assault issue. A WaPo story this morning reports some details about the possibility of mis-identification.

Ok, this possibility has to be considered. Where does this lead us? To Mark Judge, obviously. And to the FBI, who can forcefully ask "Ok, which dude was it?". Of course we only have Ford's word for it that Judge was there, maybe she mis-identified him. Who knows, maybe she mis-identified herself, we only have her word for it that she was the one on the bed.

This really has nothing to do with Ford "directing the investigation". It has everything to do with "Do we or do we not want to know what happened?". And if the Rs just ram this through, I think people can work out the answer to that one.

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

[johnu]

QFT

ldrews, on 2018-September-21, 11:32, said:

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

Unfortunately, this is the view of most Republicans in the Senate.

As Sen Grassley's alleged chief investigator for the committee, Mike Davis, tweeted,

Quote

Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh. #ConfirmKavanaugh

Davis accidentally tweeted the truth about the so called "investigation".

[johnu]

Women for Kavanaugh

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-September-21, 11:32, said:

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

At the most petty and basic level, if Ford's accusations are true it means that Kavenaugh has repeated lied about this incident which is more than enough to disqualify him.

At a more basic level, sexual assault, even by a 17 year old, is more more than enough to disqualify one from any number of jobs.
The Supreme Court, which is supposedly for out best and most respected judges certainly falls in this category.

With this said and done, I fail to see the need of appointing Kavenaugh...
Aren't there any other number of Federalist Society clones ready to take his place?

Why Kavenaugh? (Unless of course you really really care about Kavenaugh's position on impeachment)

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2018-September-21, 11:32, said:

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

I am willing to discuss this. When I was 17 I had a forced ride in a paddy wagon down to the police station. The cop suggested "Kind of old for this, aren't you son?" I have always regretted that I did not look him up later and let him know that his words actually registered with me. In the other direction, when I was 8 or so I had a babysitter, 12 or so, and not a future Supreme Court nominee, who showed me some fun games to play after bedtime. Of course for this babysitter example 12 isn't 17 and, for the first example, a ruckus in a movie theater is not the same as trying to rape someone.

As I see it, our parents are to make reasonable efforts to keep us in line when we are 12, we are responsible for ourselves when we are 18, 17 is on the cusp. Definitely not a child. At 15 I bought a car, with my money, hitchhiking around until I found the one I wanted, and then hitching back to tell my parents I needed their signature on something. At 17 I told my parents that I had decided to go to college rather than join the navy, the costs were my responsibility. For Kavanaugh, I still think there was a culture of privilege at play here. I broke rules, I never had the idea that the rules did not apply to me. And my parents were not enablers. If parents provide a place for a party involving drinking and perhaps drugs, the clear message is that the rules that applied to kids like me did not apply to the preppie. So some preppies decide some other rules also don't apply to them. Not good. And not surprising. Certainly it happens and more often than once in a blue moon.

Pinning a girl down on a bed and trying to forcefully remove her clothes? And then what we can surely assume comes next? I'm not prepared to write that off. The cop mentioned above had the right idea. At 17, you are responsible for your actions.

I sincerely wish that it had not happened. But it did. That seems pretty close to certain.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-September-21, 11:32, said:

Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

Oh yes, we now have accounts of law professors at Yale "Grooming" their female students when they applied to Kavenaugh for clerkships...

Interesting choice of words "grooming"...
You normally see it used when pedophiles are prepping victims for abuse.

[Chas_P]

kenberg, on 2018-September-21, 13:33, said:

I sincerely wish that it had not happened. But it did. That seems pretty close to certain.

I'm waiting to see what undeniable evidence she presents to the committee before rendering judgment.

[ggwhiz]

I find it hilarious that his "character witness" from H.S. is named Judge and wrote a book titled "Wasted" with a character Bart O'Kavenaugh in it.

Even funnier is the likes of ldrews wondering if any of this matters to his qualifications for the Supreme Court even if true. With an eye to the midterms and a number of GOP Senators feeling the heat I think you can just about stick a fork in this bozo.

[ldrews]

ggwhiz, on 2018-September-21, 16:13, said:

I find it hilarious that his "character witness" from H.S. is named Judge and wrote a book titled "Wasted" with a character Bart O'Kavenaugh in it.

Even funnier is the likes of ldrews wondering if any of this matters to his qualifications for the Supreme Court even if true. With an eye to the midterms and a number of GOP Senators feeling the heat I think you can just about stick a fork in this bozo.

As I understand it there is not one piece of hard evidence that any of the stuff Professor Ford claims even happened. It is a classic case of "he said, she said." For this you want to totally destroy a man's reputation and career built up over 35 years of apparently impeccable behavior. This is beyond belief!

In any case, Kavenaugh is not the same person, mentally or emotionally, as that 17 year old boy. We, the public, desire the installation of a competent, mature, balanced decision maker well versed in the application of Constitutional law. We are not interviewing a 17 year old. What Kavenaugh was or was not at 17 has little if any bearing on his performance as a Supreme Court judge.

And another thing: why stop at 17? Why not 16, 15, 14, 13,...? Perhaps your grade school antics with the girl with pigtails should disqualify you in later life from any position of importance.

Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2018-September-21, 16:58, said:

As I understand it there is not one piece of hard evidence that any of the stuff Professor Ford claims even happened. It is a classic case of "he said, she said." For this you want to totally destroy a man's reputation and career built up over 35 years of apparently impeccable behavior. This is beyond belief!

In any case, Kavenaugh is not the same person, mentally or emotionally, as that 17 year old boy. We, the public, desire the installation of a competent, mature, balanced decision maker well versed in the application of Constitutional law. We are not interviewing a 17 year old. What Kavenaugh was or was not at 17 has little if any bearing on his performance as a Supreme Court judge.

And another thing: why stop at 17? Why not 16, 15, 14, 13,...? Perhaps your grade school antics with the girl with pigtails should disqualify you in later life from any position of importance.

Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

Here we see the conservative ID at work

Who the ***** cares if Kavenaugh attempted to rape some girl.
He's OUR RAPIST and we'll excuse anything or reverse any policy that we believe in so long as OUR rapist makes his way to the courts.

[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2018-September-21, 11:32, said:

Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life.

Which part was exemplary? Where we went full-blown nuts, including leaking to the press, in Ken Starr's Clinton investigation? Or the part where he suddenly changed minds about law suits against an acting president because now it was his president in power? Or do you mean that he played a high profile role in GWB administration, aka the worst administration in recent memory? Or the part where did not hear or see anything about the Kozinski's awful behaviour - which everybody who came into three zip codes of Yale Law school heard about, except his long-time protege Kavanaugh? Who had an infamous dirty jokes email list that Kavanaugh "didn't remember" whether he was on? Or the part where he repeatedly downplays his involvement with contentious Bush administration nominations --- all very careful to the point that it's not technically perjury, but certainly misleading the judiciary committee?

Oh, I guess, you mean the part where he Sean Spicered himself praised your Dear Leader for his utmost respect for the judiciary, and for having consulted "more widely than any president before for any judicial nomination"?

That this guy even had a chance of being nominated (sane Republicans would have listened to McConnell and nominated someone else) just goes to show how the affirmative action for Republican Law School graduates evaluates candidates of low moral character. But I guess affirmative action is good when it's for Republicans.

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2018-September-21, 17:07, said:

Which part was exemplary? Where we went full-blown nuts, including leaking to the press, in Ken Starr's Clinton investigation? Or the part where he suddenly changed minds about law suits against an acting president because now it was his president in power? Or do you mean that he played a high profile role in GWB administration, aka the worst administration in recent memory? Or the part where did not hear or see anything about the Kozinski's awful behaviour - which everybody who came into three zip codes of Yale Law school heard about, except his long-time protege Kavanaugh? Who had an infamous dirty jokes email list that Kavanaugh "didn't remember" whether he was on? Or the part where he repeatedly downplays his involvement with contentious Bush administration nominations --- all very careful to the point that it's not technically perjury, but certainly misleading the judiciary committee?

Don't forget the membership in "Tit and Clit" and DKE while at Yale
(Both bastions of Yale rape culture)

[johnu]

Chas_P, on 2018-September-21, 15:12, said:

I'm waiting to see what undeniable evidence she presents to the committee before rendering judgment.