Feinstein got a letter from....

[Watu3]

Kavanaugh changed the issue from one of a teenage missteps to one of honesty. Had he simply said something happened as a teen but that was long ago in a different culture, he’d have been right.

But denying the whole thing even happened accompanied with being caught in another lie, has opened himself up to both issues. Everything we have learned about him since has been tawdry at best.

This is a job interview for an extraordinary position, not a trial. The worst that can happen is that he continues in a lifetime appointment in a high court.

The speculative attacks on Prof Ford ignore that she has nothing to gain while Kavanaugh is fighting for the job of his dreams and Trump’s promises.

We can do better and should.

 

[aTUfan]

these people have good memories.

 

[lawpoke87]

Ford has nothing to gain? Aside from fame, book income, speaking fee income, etc...I assume you’re correct.

Look...I don’t know if he did or didn’t do anything 35 years ago. She says he did. He says he didn’t. The few people she claims witnessed the event denies any knowledge of the same. Hopefully we’re not now at a place where an uncorroberated accusation 35 years old can derail someone’s career. Vote him down because he’s not qualified or based on his record. If we allow an unsubstantiated accusation from over 30 years ago to be definitive in who we allow on the court then what’s next? No one can be elected to Congress if someone makes such a claim against them? Cabinet positions? State office? We’re opening up Pandora’s box if this is the standard we are now using. You’re guilty upon any accusation regardless of proof and it’s dependent upon the accused to prove his or her innocence.

People looking at this through partisan glasses are making a huge misstep. Precedent set is precedent set. Next time it might be your guy.

 

[aTUfan]

Let's not rush to judgement. Vote him in, then fully investigate all charges, and if he is guilty, impeach him.

 

[noble cane]

Ford has nothing to gain? Aside from fame, book income, speaking fee income, etc...I assume you’re correct.

Look...I don’t know if he did or didn’t do anything 35 years ago. She says he did. He says he didn’t. The few people she claims witnessed the event denies any knowledge of the same. Hopefully we’re not now at a place where an uncorroberated accusation 35 years old can derail someone’s career. Vote him down because he’s not qualified or based on his record. If we allow an unsubstantiated accusation from over 30 years ago to be definitive in who we allow on the court then what’s next? No one can be elected to Congress if someone makes such a claim against them? Cabinet positions? State office? We’re opening up Pandora’s box if this is the standard we are now using. You’re guilty upon any accusation regardless of proof and it’s dependent upon the accused to prove his or her innocence.

People looking at this through partisan glasses are making a huge misstep. Precedent set is precedent set. Next time it might be your guy.

The standards you speak of only apply if you are a conservative.

If Kavanaugh were a progressive appointment by HRC, this woman would have been shouted down or worse yet would have been found dead of apparent self inflicted gunshot wounds.

 

[aTUfan]

Kavanaugh should hire a lawyer with an excellent record of defending sexual predictors. Hrc is available.

 

[TU_BLA]

There are more and more individuals coming forward. A couple others claim that Kavanuagh sexually assaulted them while in college. Several of Kavanaugh's classmates have come forward with information about what his lifestyle was in college and law school. This info combined with his preconceived notion about what should and should not be a law should be enough to disqualify his candidacy.

There is also an op-ed from a former conservative think-tank/strategy colleague of Kavanaugh's who described some of Kavanaugh's tactics when he worked as part of Ken Starr's team on the WhiteWater team. He described Kavanaugh as the guy who would leak info to the press, and also as the one who leaked info to Paula Jones' legal team as a strategy to get Clinton into a perjury trap. It's an interesting piece from someone who was part of the same Washington GOP lawyer group.

 

[Clong83a]

There's a lot I don't recall about high school/college. But mostly the mundane stuff. I'm pretty sure I'd remember someone assaulting me in any way. And I'd remember exactly who did it.

But that aside, false accusations can absolutely happen, especially in political cases like this. That's why you have the person come forward and testify under oath and open an investigation. It's not a criminal probe, it's just a cursory investigation to try and determine if the allegations have any merit. A hearing is supposed to happen tomorrow, and the witness welcomes a more full investigation, but one has not been scheduled. This has been deliberately set up to be a he said/she said thing. An investigation may not change that. If an investigation with actual witness affidavits (not tweets from friends, but actual sworn testimony) turns up nothing new, then I think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But now we have three accusers that verifiably were in his social sphere during those years, and plenty of other people that have said "Yeah, he was a pretty outrageous drunk and this is all plausible".

I don't know what happened. Neither does anyone here. And some people are demanding iron-clad proof before any investigation begins. That is not the purpose of an investigation. But these accusations are credible (meaning it is at least plausible), and deserve further investigation. The Republicans want to ram this through quickly to get him on the bench for the next session, and the Democrats are deliberately dragging their feet trying to make any investigation go as slowly as possible. When people play politics, the truth is the real victim. It's a lifetime term. It can wait a couple of weeks to sort it out and at least try to get it right.

It's okay to admit you were wrong about something. When I was living in San Diego, I voted for Bob Filner, a Democrat, for mayor. He won. After he won, several women came forward and claimed sexual harassment. Nothing proven by any criminal standard, and nothing admitted on his part. Some of the allegations were 20 years old. But they were all plausible, just like these. I accepted that I had likely voted for a sleazebag, and I signed the petition for his recall. He eventually resigned, and it threw the city into chaos for a bit. But it was the right thing to do.

 

[URedskin54]

The allegation from the New Yorker article doesn't seem worth mentioning since she herself said that she didn't even know if it was actually Kavanaugh, multiple people dispute her claim, and no one can confirm he was even there. I'm interested in hearing about this new one? Having Avenetti as the lawyer isn't a good start, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[Clong83a]

The allegation from the New Yorker article doesn't seem worth mentioning since she herself said that she didn't even know if it was actually Kavanaugh, multiple people dispute her claim, and no one can confirm he was even there. I'm interested in hearing about this new one? Having Avenetti as the lawyer isn't a good start, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

Fair enough on that second one. If that one were the only one out there, I'd likely say it should be dismissed without much fanfare since she herself admittedly can't say it was him 100%. It would be unfortunate if true, but you can't judge a guy on "I am pretty sure it was him..."

I find Avenatti distasteful myself, but the affidavit the third accuser has signed is pretty damning. https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/...itorialfiles/2018/09/26/swetnickstatement.pdf

 

[TU_BLA]

There's a lot I don't recall about high school/college. But mostly the mundane stuff. I'm pretty sure I'd remember someone assaulting me in any way. And I'd remember exactly who did it.

But that aside, false accusations can absolutely happen, especially in political cases like this. That's why you have the person come forward and testify under oath and open an investigation. It's not a criminal probe, it's just a cursory investigation to try and determine if the allegations have any merit. A hearing is supposed to happen tomorrow, and the witness welcomes a more full investigation, but one has not been scheduled. This has been deliberately set up to be a he said/she said thing. An investigation may not change that. If an investigation with actual witness affidavits (not tweets from friends, but actual sworn testimony) turns up nothing new, then I think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But now we have three accusers that verifiably were in his social sphere during those years, and plenty of other people that have said "Yeah, he was a pretty outrageous drunk and this is all plausible".

I don't know what happened. Neither does anyone here. And some people are demanding iron-clad proof before any investigation begins. That is not the purpose of an investigation. But these accusations are credible (meaning it is at least plausible), and deserve further investigation. The Republicans want to ram this through quickly to get him on the bench for the next session, and the Democrats are deliberately dragging their feet trying to make any investigation go as slowly as possible. When people play politics, the truth is the real victim. It's a lifetime term. It can wait a couple of weeks to sort it out and at least try to get it right.

It's okay to admit you were wrong about something. When I was living in San Diego, I voted for Bob Filner, a Democrat, for mayor. He won. After he won, several women came forward and claimed sexual harassment. Nothing proven by any criminal standard, and nothing admitted on his part. Some of the allegations were 20 years old. But they were all plausible, just like these. I accepted that I had likely voted for a sleazebag, and I signed the petition for his recall. He eventually resigned, and it threw the city into chaos for a bit. But it was the right thing to do.

And this has been the problem with the GOP since DJT became POTUS. Everything is shady. They try and ram 500 page bills through the process and give lawmakers less than 24 hours to actually read the bill before it's brought to the floor for a vote. That's ridiculous. Kavanaugh's hearings were a joke as half the information on it was marked "confidential" when it contains vital information as to the character of the man and his prejudices regarding certain stances on the law. Again, it all comes across as shady and trying to keep things from the American public because they know even the "deplorables" might be against some of this crap.

Didn't DJT promise to drain the swamp? Damn swamp is even murkier than ever. Waiting for some unbeknownst monster (demogorgon) to rise from the murk and consume us all.

 

[TUMe]

Kavanaugh was a secret agent of Al Quada until he was expelled for having sex with a camel. I learned about from someone who reads the NYT so it must be true.

 

[lawpoke87]

If the affidavit is true then the FBI has some questions to answer as they interviewed former classmates and friends as part of their vetting progress. Hard to believe parties where girls were being "gang raped" in the open never came up if true.

This could and would have all been avoided if the Dems hadn't sat on Ford's accusations until the last minute and instead forwarded the allegations to the FBI as part of it's investigation process.

 

[Clong83a]

If the affidavit is true then the FBI has some questions to answer as they interviewed former classmates and friends as part of their vetting progress. Hard to believe parties where girls were being "gang raped" in the open never came up if true.

I'm not saying it should be taken at face value. But she claims to have reported the attack to friends contemporaneously, and also to have witnesses that can verify some of the details. So... Let's investigate and see if any of that is true? Rather than just try him in the media without following up with anyone else and going solely on tweets from friends that corroborate our own instincts?

 

[TU_BLA]

Fair enough on that second one. If that one were the only one out there, I'd likely say it should be dismissed without much fanfare since she herself admittedly can't say it was him 100%. It would be unfortunate if true, but you can't judge a guy on "I am pretty sure it was him..."

I find Avenatti distasteful myself, but the affidavit the third accuser has signed is pretty damning. https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/...itorialfiles/2018/09/26/swetnickstatement.pdf

D'OH!

 

[URedskin54]

Whatever the merits, it's probably best to move on to another nominee at this point and let the allegations run their course. If the allegations of gang rape have any merit obviously the guy shouldn't be on any circuit court either

 

[Clong83a]

Whatever the merits, it's probably best to move on to another nominee at this point and let the allegations run their course. If the allegations of gang rape have any merit obviously the guy shouldn't be on any circuit court either

^That's what I don't really get. I guess the GOP is just so gung ho about getting someone seated by the start of the session that they aren't really thinking clearly. If they quickly reject Kavanaugh, there is still time to get a new justice on the court before the new Congress takes over in January. Any 4-4 decisions that go unresolved will inevitably come up again during the course of his lifetime appointment, so I don't see the big deal.

I will also just say for the record, that if an investigation is able to determine that any of these women are outright lying and fabricating stories, that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[lawpoke87]

Whatever the merits, it's probably best to move on to another nominee at this point and let the allegations run their course. If the allegations of gang rape have any merit obviously the guy shouldn't be on any circuit court either

I'm not sure you can do that. If we set as a precedent that a 35 year old last minute allegation without proof or an investigation is sufficient to derail someone from being a Justice then lookout going forward. Think you have to get with the FBI and see who they talked to and allow them to talk to some more people. Get their report then either move on or vote.

Pubs are gun ho about getting someone seated before midterms due to the potential makeup of the Senate while the Dems are doing everything they can to delay a vote until the same.

 

[TUMe]

I'm not sure you can do that. If we set as a precedent that a 35 year old last minute allegation without proof or an investigation is sufficient to derail someone from being a Justice then lookout going forward. Think you have to get with the FBI and see who they talked to and allow them to talk to some more people. Get their report then either move on or vote.

Pubs are gun ho about getting someone seated before midterms due to the potential makeup of the Senate while the Dems are doing everything they can to delay a vote until the same.

Looking back the choice came down to K or a lady judge. In hind sight she might have been safer. The next candidate should be female, preferably a nun and...oh...wait, a nun might be against abortion.

 

[noble cane]

And this has been the problem with the GOP since DJT became POTUS. Everything is shady. They try and ram 500 page bills through the process and give lawmakers less than 24 hours to actually read the bill before it's brought to the floor for a vote..

Sounds a lot like the ACA...

 

[noble cane]

Whatever the merits, it's probably best to move on to another nominee at this point and let the allegations run their course. If the allegations of gang rape have any merit obviously the guy shouldn't be on any circuit court either

A guy representing a porn star brings allegations of gang rape forward... irony?

 

[Watu3]

The lying issues are a bigger ones for me than teen ‘indiscretions’ back when cultural norms were different. K has repeatedly portrayed himself and denied events that are at odds with those who knew him well into adulthood.

Is this the best the US can do? I hope not.

 

[noble cane]

The lying issues are a bigger ones for me.......

Is this the best the US can do? I hope not.

Hmmmmm....

Hmmmmm....

 

[TU_BLA]

Sounds a lot like the ACA...

Wrong. Fact: It was introduced in Sept. 2009. Passed the House in November 2009. Amended and passed the Senate Dec. 2009. Senate amendments agreed to by House and passed March 21, 2010.

Sounds like plenty of time for everyone to read and debate before votes were taken. Tax cuts were passed what, 48 hours after it was introduced. No one can read a tax bill in 48 hours and have a full understanding of what was in it.

 

[Watu3]

Alternately, attorney who successfully defends woman from Trump defamation advises another woman about to be hammered by Republican Senate hired gun. Or a self admitted sexual predator nominates judge to SCOTUS who is accused of sexual assault by multiple women.

Lots of ways to spin things. Let’s hope the Senate avoids discrediting itself in how it handles a loaded situation.

A guy representing a porn star brings allegations of gang rape forward... irony?

 

[TU_BLA]

Alternately, attorney who successfully defends woman from Trump defamation advises another woman about to be hammered by Republican Senate hired gun. Or a self admitted sexual predator nominates judge to SCOTUS who is accused of sexual assault by multiple women.

Lots of ways to spin things. Let’s hope the Senate avoids discrediting itself in how it handles a loaded situation.

Apparently, a committee vote has been called for Friday morning on Kavanaugh's nomination meaning the GOP is hearing testimony of the accusers but not willing to consider it credible or to investigate it even if any of them find any of it credible. Why the sideshow act if you're already signalling that you don't care that this person was possibly a sexual predator in college with an MO.

 

[URedskin54]

Apparently, a committee vote has been called for Friday morning on Kavanaugh's nomination meaning the GOP is hearing testimony of the accusers but not willing to consider it credible or to investigate it even if any of them find any of it credible. Why the sideshow act if you're already signalling that you don't care that this person was possibly a sexual predator in college with an MO.

You have to schedule a vote in order to maintain the option of actually having the vote should the results of the hearing warrant it. Simple procedure

 

[aTUfan]

Bill Clinton stayed in office after he was impeached, and accused of rape.

Many dem senators stayed in office after using taxpayer money to payoff their hush money.

What is different now?

 

[cmullinsTU]

More he said she said: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-attended-georgetown-prep-sister-schools.html

I’m not in favor of Kavanaugh, but I just don’t see what can or should be done about the accusations.

If they decide to delay the vote to investigate, go for it. I firmly believe nothing will be found, even if all accusations are accurate, and it will have almost no impact on the final votes. Just my opinion

 

[TUMe]

More he said she said: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-attended-georgetown-prep-sister-schools.html

I’m not in favor of Kavanaugh, but I just don’t see what can or should be done about the accusations.

If they decide to delay the vote to investigate, go for it. I firmly believe nothing will be found, even if all accusations are accurate, and it will have almost no impact on the final votes. Just my opinion

I agree. I doubt he gets the job. What I dislike the most is that accused equals guilty.

As a side note, it appears that a large number of parents had no knowledge of where their kids were or what they were doing. Certainly no control.

 

[URedskin54]

Two more accusations....or not. One has already recanted and the other was an anonymous letter sent to a senator with no address or identifying info. Some even speculating republicans released these to discredit the existing allegations. What a mess. I need to go back to not paying attention to politics again

 

[cmullinsTU]

Two more accusations....or not. One has already recanted and the other was an anonymous letter sent to a senator with no address or identifying info. Some even speculating republicans released these to discredit the existing allegations. What a mess. I need to go back to not paying attention to politics again

I’m right there with you! I miss the days when I just didn’t care

 

[lawpoke87]

Two more accusations....or not. One has already recanted and the other was an anonymous letter sent to a senator with no address or identifying info. Some even speculating republicans released these to discredit the existing allegations. What a mess. I need to go back to not paying attention to politics again

Just saw another accusation from a woman claiming she was raped by Kavanaugh on a yacht of the Delaware shore.

 

[URedskin54]

Just saw another accusation from a woman claiming she was raped by Kavanaugh on a yacht of the Delaware shore.

Yeah that's the recanted one. It was actually a rando twitter guy who told a dem senator that he beat Kavanaugh up after he raped a girl on a yacht.

Oh, and also now a guy has supposedly come forward to the judiciary committee claiming that he is actually the one who assaulted Ford. I assume this guy is probably nuts, but wow too weird

 

[GoldenCaneKC]

Initial caveats:
*I am a registered independent and would consider myself a libertarian, if I had to choose.
*I did not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
*I don’t ever post in comments sections of news websites because it feels pointless. I’m only commenting here because this isn’t a partisan website and maybe it’s at least a little bit possible people can/will listen to each other because of the common interest of TU sports.

Now that that’s out of the way, here’s my two cents:
1) Asserting that someone is disqualified from high public office because of unproven and unprovable (and un-disprovable) accusations of any kind is unfair and goes against the fabric of justice that is necessary to having a functional, civilized society.
2) The long term implications of denying someone a high public office based on unproven and unprovable (and un-disprovable) accusations are chilling. If that is the standard by which people are disqualified from public office, it will be weaponized ad infinitum by each side of the political spectrum.
3) My biggest beef in this whole situation is with Senator Feinstein. Yes, the Republican Senators want to move relatively quickly to a vote, but in my opinion, when Senator Feinstein chose not to bring up the accusation during the normal course of the confirmation hearings, she forfeited any right to complain about things being rushed now.

There is no doubt that there is politicking going on on both sides. But I have to say that if I were a senator, based on everything known right now, I would not be in favor of delaying the vote for an additional investigation by the FBI, and I would vote to confirm. Also, I would encourage the accusers to file criminal charges in the proper jurisdictions, if they are so inclined. If a guilty verdict is reached in any of the criminal cases, impeachment would be appropriate (and in my mind, easily accomplished).

I’d love to hear any of your all’s thoughts/responses to any other those three points, or my conclusion. Thanks.

 

[cmullinsTU]

My biggest beef in this whole situation is with Senator Feinstein. Yes, the Republican Senators want to move relatively quickly to a vote, but in my opinion, when Senator Feinstein chose not to bring up the accusation during the normal course of the confirmation hearings, she forfeited any right to complain about things being rushed now.

I agree with your assessments but this really stands out to me. Feinstein completely used Ford as a pawn and clearly doesn’t actually care about her.

I’ve seen more than a few posts, outside of here, condemning and saying terrible things about Ford. That anger should be pointed Feinstein or even better these people can calm down and realize politics moves slowly.

 

[noble cane]

I agree with your assessments but this really stands out to me. Feinstein completely used Ford as a pawn and clearly doesn’t actually care about her.

I’ve seen more than a few posts, outside of here, condemning and saying terrible things about Ford. That anger should be pointed Feinstein or even better these people can calm down and realize politics moves slowly.

Anger should be directed at the “Lion of the Senate”, Ted Kennedy. He’s the one that started these circus hearings when he politicized the Bork nomination.

 

[astonmartin708]

I agree with your assessments but this really stands out to me. Feinstein completely used Ford as a pawn and clearly doesn’t actually care about her.

I’ve seen more than a few posts, outside of here, condemning and saying terrible things about Ford. That anger should be pointed Feinstein or even better these people can calm down and realize politics moves slowly.

She didn't do it because she was asked not to. I would be mad at her or her staff for leaking the name to news agencies which, in turn, compelled the alleged victim to basically have to speak out.

 

[lawpoke87]

She didn't do it because she was asked not to. I would be mad at her or her staff for leaking the name to news agencies which, in turn, compelled the alleged victim to basically have to speak out.

She didn't have to go public with any information. Give the accusation to the FBI and have them privately investigate it as part of their overall background investigation. Instead she's made it this circus....for obvious political reasons. I'll take it a step further...if Feinstein believed the accusation to be credible then she had a duty to forward it to the FBI to investigate as part of it's vetting process.

 

[astonmartin708]

To be honest, I kind of appreciate an accusation of this magnitude being publicly disclosed. No offense to the FBI, but I don't love having a one or even a couple analysts being the judge and jury of any candidates' moral aptitude for office. Let the senators deal with it. Let the people know the questions they're asking and the conclusions they're coming to. Don't keep it secret.

I do wish the accuser would have gone public MUCH earlier though... like maybe at Kavanaughs first appointment hearing.