posted by ptown_trojans_1

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. 

Likely a waste of time, but as long as it doesn't become simply an opportunity for the minority to try to figure out the next delaying tactic, why not?

posted by Fab4Runner

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. 

One of the things the FBI should look into, if they re-open this, is if the childhood homes of those 4-6 people remotely match the description given.  I have a feeling it will not.

Would that be fair?  If the homes of the people she said were there don't match her description of the house, would her memory still be considered reliable despite that, and despite the others denying such a party occurred?

posted by Fab4Runner

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. 

Absolutely.  Anyone who says that there's no way for what she said to be true is self-deluded.

But I agree that there's really nothing that came out yesterday that would tip the scale for her.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

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. 

Kav did not say he did not "remember," he straight up said this never happened.    Another hole in Ford's story is two guys allegeldy tried to rape her, so she leaves the one woman there without alerting her? 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Has been recently in most high profile firings...

Haven't most of those involved MULTIPLE, half a dozen or more, credible accounts?  I don't consider the other accusations against Kavanaugh to be remotely credible at this point, especially given they were quite public and/or frequent and no one has corroborated them.

He may have been like this in high school/college, and not to dismiss that or pass judgement, but after 6 FBI investigations it's hard to believe nothing like this ever surfaced.  I don't know how deeply they dig into pre-professional history, but in the latter case spotless in 30+ year career....and, again, suddenly became a choir boy?  If we take these allegations to be true, I would expect at least a few allegations in his 30+ year career because that sort of serial behavior doesn't just stop the moment you take a job.

posted by Fab4Runner

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. 

That IS possible, but she doesn't know who was there. Everyone named thus far, including her friend, have said no. She could still be telling the truth without knowing that too, but we'll never know.

posted by like_that

Another hole in Ford's story is two guys allegeldy tried to rape her, so she leaves the one woman there without alerting her? 

Ehhh, not necessarily a hole as there are explanations, but suggests at least a few questions a real cross-examination would ask. 

And it also seems odd, even when people have a few different circles of friends, that her BFF not just denies being there, but denies even knowing Kavanaugh.  I think that would be a dagger even in a civil trial.  But is that the right standard?  Or is it the case if you have "reasonable doubt" that Kavanaugh is innocent, then that should disqualify him from a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS?

posted by iclfan2

That IS possible, but she doesn't know who was there. Everyone named thus far, including her friend, have said no. She could still be telling the truth without knowing that too, but we'll never know.

It pretty much comes down to emotion vs facts.  I am a facts guy, so I lean toward Kav.  If some legitimate evidence comes up I would be willing to lean toward Ford. 

posted by gut

Ehhh, not necessarily a hole as there are explanations, but suggests at least a few questions a real cross-examination would ask. 

And it also seems odd, even when people have a few different circles of friends, that her BFF not just denies being there, but denies even knowing Kavanaugh.  I think that would be a dagger even in a civil trial.  But is that the right standard?  Or is it the case if you have "reasonable doubt" that Kavanaugh is innocent, then that should disqualify him from a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS?

 

The witnesses are the biggest hole to her story, but it does seem odd she would just leave her friend with 2 alleged rapists.  

I'm seeing a bunch of one-liners on social media from left leaning people saying that what is happening to Kavanaugh is justifying Merrick Garland.

What?!

posted by gut

Or is it the case if you have "reasonable doubt" that Kavanaugh is innocent, then that should disqualify him from a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS?

 

There should never be a standard in any way related to our government that requires proof of innocence.

posted by like_that

The witnesses are the biggest hole to her story, but it does seem odd she would just leave her friend with 2 alleged rapists.  

Well, that assumes she's thinking clearly and thinking anything other than getting out of the house.  But I'd agree it's a bit odd her friend wouldn't notice her leaving very upset, or that she wouldn't ask her friend to take her home.

Also, it's fair that she needed some time to be prepared to testify.  That says nothing about her her testimony.  But you do wonder how she was coached to fill-in potential gaps....like the explanation how she heard them pinballing down the stairs over the loud music - not a detail I'd expect her to remember, yet she had a cogent response and was IMO prepped extensively to answer that question.  

Flake and his cronies are calling for a delay so the fbi can get the same information the committee already got. By the time that happens there will be 93 more anonymous accusers and Avenetti's client interview this weekend. Oh boy

posted by iclfan2

Flake and his cronies are calling for a delay so the fbi can get the same information the committee already got. By the time that happens there will be 93 more anonymous accusers and Avenetti's client interview this weekend. Oh boy

Judge just agreed to cooperate with law enforcement, provided his privacy can be guaranteed.  So that probably seals the fact an investigation will be opened.

I think Repubs should very narrowly limit the scope and timing of the timeline.  It cannot be an open-ended "turn over every stone" witch hunt.  You interview these people.  You attempt to verify X,Y and Z claims.  You have 5 days.  I imagine a dozen investigators can cover a lot of ground in 5 days, pretty much strictly interviews (most of which will take about 5 minutes).

The question is, how long should other accusers be given to come forward?  Seems like Ford came out just 2 weeks ago, and a few others in the last few days.  So I'm not sure you can summarily dismiss any new allegations because it's a tough thing to come forward and that's not a lot of time to reach a decision and work with counsel to come out.

posted by queencitybuckeye

There should never be a standard in any way related to our government that requires proof of innocence.

There should never be a standard that requires proof of innocence full stop.

If government had not swollen to such a massive and repressive size, and intertwined itself into every facet of our lives, this and most other similar issues would not be much of a deal, nor garner significant interest.  But because government has overtaken so much of our lives and thereby wields massive power, the struggle for power and the direction of government is nearly all-consuming.

Shame on us, as we march headlong into losing the republic within 40 years.

posted by O-Trap

There should never be a standard that requires proof of innocence full stop.

That's what is so disgusting.  Flip the tables, and this unfolds in a mirror image of the current shit show.   Just saw the senator from Hawaii go on a cherry-picking rant, conveniently omitting one of the strongest points against Ford - her BFF denies even knowing Kavanaugh, which is a much stronger refutation than denying (or not remembering) such a party occurred.

posted by O-Trap

There should never be a standard that requires proof of innocence full stop.

Because of rampant white male privilege, fairness not only requires but necessitates proof of innocence!

posted by gut

Judge just agreed to cooperate with law enforcement, provided his privacy can be guaranteed.  So that probably seals the fact an investigation will be opened.

I think Repubs should very narrowly limit the scope and timing of the timeline.  It cannot be an open-ended "turn over every stone" witch hunt.  You interview these people.  You attempt to verify X,Y and Z claims.  You have 5 days.  I imagine a dozen investigators can cover a lot of ground in 5 days, pretty much strictly interviews (most of which will take about 5 minutes).

The question is, how long should other accusers be given to come forward?  Seems like Ford came out just 2 weeks ago, and a few others in the last few days.  So I'm not sure you can summarily dismiss any new allegations because it's a tough thing to come forward and that's not a lot of time to reach a decision and work with counsel to come out.

As I understand it, the vote was going to happen on Tuesday, and the agreement was for a delay in the vote of a week. Not "about a week", not "a week unless something else is uncovered". The vote should take place on the 9th.

posted by gut

Because of rampant white male privilege, fairness not only requires but necessitates proof of innocence!

Here's the thing about that:

I even acknowledge the existence of privilege.  I see it pretty regularly, almost always in my favor.

However, the courts are supposed to be places in which the scales are balanced already and any outside privilege doesn't come into play.

Republicans tend to deny that this isn't already the case, which is problematic, because numbers tell us that those elements of the judicial system which are subjective still carry with them some unequal perspective.

However, the Democrats are just as bad, because while they acknowledge the unbalanced scales, they so often seem to seek the courts to act as a vehicle to counterbalance to external inequalities, consciously or otherwise, so they effectively push for what you're suggesting.  If privilege exists outside the courts, and it tips the scales one way, their responses so often seem to indicate that they want the scales to tip the opposite way within the judicial system.  Because if you get dicked over outside the courts, and I get dicked over inside the courts, somehow that makes everything better.

Aaaand the committee gave in to Flake and the other 2 demands and are requesting the 7th background check of Kavanaugh, to not last more than one week (yea right).  Let the shit show continue another week and a half at least. If they find no further evidence, what do the Dems say then? I realize that is a hypothetical, but say they find something, Kavanugh is withdrawn. If not, are we really going to assume he easily gets passed through?  Chris Murphy already came out and said he doesn't care what the FBI says, he's out.

posted by iclfan2

Chris Murphy already came out and said he doesn't care what the FBI says, he's out.

So my suggestion to see if houses of any of the 5 mention matched her description......what if houses in that area share 3-4 common blueprints, or if a floorplan is a "possible" match - can you imagine how polarizing that would be as key evidence for BOTH sides of the debate?

Which reminds me - didn't Kavanaugh say none of them lived in that area?  She wasn't properly cross-examined, and these are critical questions that might raise serious questions about her recollection.  So a house she doesn't remember, that none of the partiers lived in?!? 

Possible it was someone's aunt/uncle, cousin or even a friend's house that was out-of-town.  But then the "unlikely" starts piling up.  And, BTW, the FBI needs to verify the therapist notes actually exist (I assume they do, otherwise that's a giant oversight).

Trump has authorized the investigation by the FBI. Calls for limited scope (specifics not reported) and no more than a week in duration.

posted by QuakerOats

 

If government had not swollen to such a massive and repressive size, and intertwined itself into every facet of our lives, this and most other similar issues would not be much of a deal, nor garner significant interest.  But because government has overtaken so much of our lives and thereby wields massive power, the struggle for power and the direction of government is nearly all-consuming.

 

Shame on us, as we march headlong into losing the republic within 40 years.

 

Have a nice weekend Chicken Little. 

posted by like_that

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. 

Do you see that there is a difference between lampooning Ted Cruz for being a square as a politician trying to connect with voters and an appointed Judge? Ted Cruz' squareness is a feature as a judge and a bug as a Senator.

Also, as to you comparing me to Kavanaugh. Being a Supreme Court Justice is different than being an every day corporate lawyer, yes? In any case we ARE held to codes of professional conduct! Lawyers routinely get suspended for substance abuse matters. 

Also - to your point, Supreme Court justices should be held to,even,higher standards than elected officials because they can't be voted out. 

In any case as this is beside the point as said I really don't care that he partied hard or drinks. I'd rather have a choir boy like Gorsuch but the point to me is that he is that he clearly lied about stupid little shit.

And, that is why it is good to have the FBI question some of these witnesses willing to talk to the news but were ignored by the judiciary committee. 

And tbh I,have no idea why you are talking about Obama here lol.