Enough with the FBI investigation....The people deny being there.  That's literally one question, which has already been answered under penalty of felony.  You can ask a bunch more questions, but it's not going to change their answer unless they intend to perjure themselves.

So ridiculous.  You want an investigation, she can go to the police.  Oh, wait, there's nothing to actually investigate.

I'm not sure what the standard should be.  I believe Ford's story, and her memory seems reasonably reliable.  But the witnesses she named all deny being there, and she can't even remember the house, or originally the year.  Even on a civil court, I'm not sure I would side with the plaintiff.  But should the bar be lower than a civil suit?  I think probably so.  

I think Kavanaugh lied - just laid it on a bit too thick in parts.  So I guess that should disqualify him.  

posted by Spock

you have 330,000,0000 people in this country and these are the best 100 people we can find to run the place......DC is shitty

This has been said for a long time.  Look at everything drummed up on Clinton, Trump, Romney, Kavanaugh, Kerry.  Character assassination is real, and if you have actual skeletons in your closet, good luck.

So you either have to be very skilled at lying/denying, or squeaky clean.  Most people are not squeaky clean, especially when you drudge up stuff from college and earlier.  People who want to subject themselves to such an anal probe should have their motives seriously questioned.  It's a lust for power combined with narcissism - pretty much the only type of candidate you'll get.

posted by gut

This has been said for a long time.  Look at everything drummed up on Clinton, Trump, Romney, Kavanaugh, Kerry.  Character assassination is real, and if you have actual skeletons in your closet, good luck.

So you either have to be very skilled at lying/denying, or squeaky clean.  Most people are not squeaky clean, especially when you drudge up stuff from college and earlier.  People who want to subject themselves to such an anal probe should have their motives seriously questioned.  It's a lust for power combined with narcissism - pretty much the only type of candidate you'll get.

You just summed up what took Plato much longer to articulate in his Republic.

posted by BoatShoes

When have LiBruLz made fun of Supreme Court Justices for being uptight. The goal was to make sure the nomination through before the midterm. It looks like it will work out but all I'm saying is that they at least failed at trying to get a guy with minimal baggage. And yes - having a history as a party animal is baggage for a supreme court nominee that they could have reasonably seen would be attacked politically. C'mon bro. 

I partied hard in law school and I would fully expect that to weigh on a judicial nomination and there were plenty of nerds who did not who would be a lot easier to confirm. 

I am speaking of liberals in general.  This isn't new, they have always mocked conservatives for being up tight, boring, etc.  It's hilarious now they are concerned about a guy who drank beer  when he was 18-22 years old in college LOL.  Mind you, these are the same people (including you apparently) who jerked off to Obama when he admitted to smoking weed in college.  And I have nothing against weed.  Based on this idiotic logic, you should be fired from your current job.  C'mon bro. 

posted by BoatShoes

And I think the issue that he is clearly lying and there are people who would be willing to testify to the committee that aren't being called etc. 

It's whatever just confirm the guy and get it over with. Conservatives don't care if he is lying just like liberals don't care if Hillary lied about getting shot at in Kosovo. 

God forbid you get accused of something with 0 corroborating evidence.   Might as well purge the entire SCOTUS and hold 9 vacant seats forever with the bar set so low. 

posted by like_that

....a guy who drank beer  when he was 18-22 years old in college...

He made it VERY clear that he still drinks beer :)

posted by gut

He made it VERY clear that he still drinks beer :)

I'd hope so. Quitting's for pussies and that is where I draw the line.

posted by gut

I believe Ford's story, and her memory seems reasonably reliable.  But the witnesses she named all deny being there, and she can't even remember the house, or originally the year.  Even on a civil court, I'm not sure I would side with the plaintiff.  But should the bar be lower than a civil suit?  I think probably so.  

I think Kavanaugh lied - just laid it on a bit too thick in parts.  So I guess that should disqualify him.  

Lol her memory seams reasonably reliable? She has changed the story of the party over 6 times. Doesn't know where, when, who drove home, who paid for lie detector, it goes on and on. Her memory does not seem reliable. And no, nothing about this would ever work in an actual court. She would get destroyed under intense cross-examination. 

If Kav wasn't "angry" people would have a problem with it, and now they have a problem that he was. It's a lose lose, but I'm glad he pushed back on it.

And everyone can stop pretending that 1) the FBI would even investigate and 2) that it would only take a week (could be months)

posted by gut

He made it VERY clear that he still drinks beer :)

Based on boatshoes logic, the only person on this site that would have a job right now is con_alma. 

posted by BoatShoes

And I think the issue that he is clearly lying and there are people who would be willing to testify to the committee that aren't being called etc. 

It's whatever just confirm the guy and get it over with. Conservatives don't care if he is lying just like liberals don't care if Hillary lied about getting shot at in Kosovo. 

This

posted by Spock

posted by BoatShoes

And I think the issue that he is clearly lying and there are people who would be willing to testify to the committee that aren't being called etc. 

It's whatever just confirm the guy and get it over with. Conservatives don't care if he is lying just like liberals don't care if Hillary lied about getting shot at in Kosovo. 

This

Never thought this day would come.

posted by iclfan2

Lol her memory seams reasonably reliable?

The truly relevant part of her story is the attempted sexual assault.  That has never changed, and her memory of that event seemed pretty solid.  It's hardly inconceivable that less relevant details faded from memory over time, as she tried to forget what she could about the incident.

Again, she made these allegations before he was nominated.  She has a record discussing it in the years prior, and several people who attested she said it was a federal judge and/or Kavanaugh.

The part of her account that was in question was the accuracy of her memory, and the thing that really struck me is she DID know both Kavanaugh and Judge.  It seems very unlikely to me that she would mistakenly identify TWO people whom she knew with 100% confidence.  If she didn't actually remember it, I don't believe she puts a face & name on BOTH people in the room.

posted by iclfan2

And everyone can stop pretending that 1) the FBI would even investigate and 2) that it would only take a week (could be months)

This is what I get tired of hearing, and people parroting that talking point without any critical thinking.

And you're absolutely right.  That's why the Dems want an FBI investigation, because it's the only way to delay this until they potentially takeover the Senate.  Note the relative lack of people calling for Kavanaugh's withdrawal - that would still give Repubs time to confirm another nominee before January.

posted by gut

The truly relevant part of her story is the attempted sexual assault.  That has never changed, and her memory of that event seemed pretty solid.  It's hardly inconceivable that less relevant details faded from memory over time, as she tried to forget what she could about the incident.

Again, she made these allegations before he was nominated.  She has a record discussing it in the years prior, and several people who attested she said it was a federal judge and/or Kavanaugh.

The part of her account that was in question was the accuracy of her memory, and the thing that really struck me is she DID know both Kavanaugh and Judge.  It seems very unlikely to me that she would mistakenly identify TWO people whom she knew with 100% confidence.  If she didn't actually remember it, I don't believe she puts a face & name on BOTH people in the room.

Agreed. 

posted by iclfan2

Lol her memory seams reasonably reliable? She has changed the story of the party over 6 times. Doesn't know where, when, who drove home, who paid for lie detector, it goes on and on. Her memory does not seem reliable. And no, nothing about this would ever work in an actual court. She would get destroyed under intense cross-examination. 

If Kav wasn't "angry" people would have a problem with it, and now they have a problem that he was. It's a lose lose, but I'm glad he pushed back on it.

And everyone can stop pretending that 1) the FBI would even investigate and 2) that it would only take a week (could be months)

I've read you make point before, but if we go with your narrow definition, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Les Moorvas, Bill O'Reilly and others would all still have their jobs. 
 

That said, it's a valid question to ask on where is the line between burden of proof and believing these women. That's why I think yesterday was sad and such a missed opportunity. 

posted by iclfan2

If Kav wasn't "angry" people would have a problem with it, and now they have a problem that he was. It's a lose lose, but I'm glad he pushed back on it.

I saw this tweet a few minutes ago, and is pretty topical to this post.

https://twitter.com/back_ttys/status/1045705494529290241

posted by ptown_trojans_1

That said, it's a valid question to ask on where is the line between burden of proof and believing these women. That's why I think yesterday was sad and such a missed opportunity. 

That is truly an excellent question.

I think, if I were on the jury of a civil suit (because no DA is bringing this to criminal trial), I would have to find for Kavanaugh based on lack of evidence.  The witnesses she named disputing the event is a killer.  If she hadn't named other witnesses, I might be inclined to side with her.

And then what's at stake for Kavanaugh is likely far greater than what he'd lose in a civil judgement against him on this matter.  But that's debatable, at least financially, since he's likely to keep(?) his current position.

posted by gut

The truly relevant part of her story is the attempted sexual assault.  That has never changed, and her memory of that event seemed pretty solid.  It's hardly inconceivable that less relevant details faded from memory over time, as she tried to forget what she could about the incident.

Again, she made these allegations before he was nominated.  She has a record discussing it in the years prior, and several people who attested she said it was a federal judge and/or Kavanaugh.

The part of her account that was in question was the accuracy of her memory, and the thing that really struck me is she DID know both Kavanaugh and Judge.  It seems very unlikely to me that she would mistakenly identify TWO people whom she knew with 100% confidence.  If she didn't actually remember it, I don't believe she puts a face & name on BOTH people in the room.

Agreed. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

That said, it's a valid question to ask on where is the line between burden of proof and believing these women.

 

So, the pragmatist in me continues to ask how you can believe her story without any physical evidence or corroboration of any sort?  Yes, she was compelling on the stand and in her testimony.....but at the end of the day, it is her word against his.

Generally, in cases where it is a 'he said, she said', I generally believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

posted by wkfan

So, the pragmatist in me continues to ask how you can believe her story without any physical evidence or corroboration of any sort?  Yes, she was compelling on the stand and in her testimony.....but at the end of the day, it is her word against his.

and that of "her" corroborating  witnesses, ALL of whom called bullshit on her.

So what are these fucking idiots doing now? Time to vote, and they're all leaving.

posted by wkfan

So, the pragmatist in me continues to ask how you can believe her story without any physical evidence or corroboration of any sort?  Yes, she was compelling on the stand and in her testimony.....but at the end of the day, it is her word against his.

Generally, in cases where it is a 'he said, she said', I generally believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I do think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I do think it is possible to believe her account and to believe he honestly does not remember it. It's possible he may have either forgotten the event or was too drunk to remember it. 

She came off as very believable to me.  

Also, I'm not sold that others deny it took place. Only Mark Judge knows and he said, like Kav, he does not remember it. That's not a denial exactly. He could have been black out drunk too, who knows.

Again, yesterday was sad because everyone heard what they wanted to hear through their own partisan lens. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Also, I'm not sold that others deny it took place. Only Mark Judge knows and he said, like Kav, he does not remember it. That's not a denial exactly. He could have been black out drunk too, who knows.

 

That's fair, but if they are her best chance of corroboration and you therefore discount their statements completely, you're back to "he said/she said", and that shouldn't be enough. Ever.

Just chiming in to say that it is 100% possible to not remember dates or addresses but still know who assaulted you, who else was there and exactly what happened. 

posted by queencitybuckeye

Also, I'm not sold that others deny it took place. Only Mark Judge knows and he said, like Kav, he does not remember it. That's not a denial exactly. He could have been black out drunk too, who knows.

 

That's fair, but if they are her best chance of corroboration and you therefore discount their statements completely, you're back to "he said/she said", and that shouldn't be enough. Ever.

 

Has been recently in most high profile firings...

Anyways, looks like the committee has voted to pass Kav off to the full Senate. Flake asks the Senate to hold off the vote 1 week delay for the FBI to look into the allegations. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I do think it is possible to believe her account and to believe he honestly does not remember it. It's possible he may have either forgotten the event or was too drunk to remember it.

It is also possible that this event took place exactly as she described.....but the perp was someone else.  Without physical evidence, we'll never really know for sure.