And then there were Three....Correction....FIVE...!!

[Ana the Ist]

"Republican Senate investigators asked Kavanaugh about the new complaint during a call on Tuesday between Kavanaugh and committee staff.

When asked about the allegation, contained in an anonymous letter sent to a GOP senator, Kavanaugh responded, “we’re dealing with an anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend. It’s ridiculous.
...
While Republican staff posed questions to Kavanaugh, their Democratic counterparts were also on the call but did not ask any questions."

No, this is Republicans themselves bringing up something weak so they can mock it, rather than investigate claims made by named people in sworn testimony.

You realize that they are investigating these claims...right?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You realize that they are investigating these claims...right?

Certainly. I was objecting to the characterization that this was "democrats … throwing everything they have at the wall and hoping something sticks."

(Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps you were saying that they (Senate staffers) are investigating the other claims. Again, what I'm calling for is an FBI investigation, just as occurred with Anita Hill's claims.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Certainly. I was objecting to the characterization that this was "democrats … throwing everything they have at the wall and hoping something sticks."

(Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps you were saying that they (Senate staffers) are investigating the other claims. Again, what I'm calling for is an FBI investigation, just as occurred with Anita Hill's claims.)

I see...well in that case, you realize that the Senate and Congress have no ability to force the FBI to investigate, right?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that would fall under Trump...and I don't think it's likely at this point.

Feinstein sat on the Ford accusation for 40 days...under the pretense of respecting Ford's decision on allowing Ford the decision to testify when she was "ready". I happen to agree that is her right, and there's nothing wrong with respecting her choice...but with November elections just around the corner, and the Democrats obviously thinking they can leverage the nomination issue to get more seats, they don't seem to be doing this out of some pursuit of the truth.

It seems like they sat on this for 40 days, and they're willing to make an issue out of ant allegations no matter how ridiculous, in the hopes of stalling until they can get enough seats to deny confirmation. Even if the investigation of Ford only takes a week, they can stall to consider the findings, subpeona witness like Mark Judge, and listen to testimony. Even if all that finishes before October is done...they'll just demand the same for each new allegation....

It's hard to imagine that this is anything other than dirty politics to try and deny a SC nomination. Keep in mind, I'm saying that as someone who doesn't want Kavanaugh as a justice...but I don't think my opinions on Kavanaugh justify this sort of dirty, backhanded, character assassination.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

She's unable to recall the date or location of the events. Everyone she claims was there has denied that these things happened.

She's giving her testimony, and I expect that will be the end of it.

But the accusations could be true...

 

[super animator]

But the accusations could be true...

It still a he said she said scenario.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

IMHO somebody committed perjury today. They both can't be telling the truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But the accusations could be true...

If they're proven true...then he shouldn't be confirmed.

Lacking that...he should be considered innocent.

 

[NotreDame]

It's not. That's my point. Did you not understand the Cosby reference?

No. Um, never watched the show. A little before my time.

 

[NotreDame]

That is the point. The confirmation should not proceed while questions are unresolved. The resolution of those questions should provide the actual basis for a determination if Kavanaugh is fit to serve.

You referenced unresolved questions about his character. Your position ignores the possibility it is perhaps inevitable some questions could go unresolved, and not necessarily any result of a lack of trying to resolve those questions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I see...well in that case, you realize that the Senate and Congress have no ability to force the FBI to investigate, right?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that would fall under Trump...and I don't think it's likely at this point.

That's true. And reflects poorly on Trump.

I've kept a reasonably open mind through all this. But the Durbin/Kavanaugh exchange today about whether Kavanaugh would invite an FBI probe has settled matters. For me, he failed the job interview.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Certainly. I was objecting to the characterization that this was "democrats … throwing everything they have at the wall and hoping something sticks."

(Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps you were saying that they (Senate staffers) are investigating the other claims. Again, what I'm calling for is an FBI investigation, just as occurred with Anita Hill's claims.)

Such an investigation would have to be ordered by a president -- and we don't have one with that kind of commitment to finding truth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If they're proven true...then he shouldn't be confirmed.

Lacking that...he should be considered innocent.

Don't you think a potential SCOTUS judge should be held to a higher standard than a criminal defendant?

 

[rambot]

IMHO somebody committed purgery today. The both can't be telling the truth.

Yeah. It's probably the one who told her husband about something that didn't happen and has been in therapy and traumatized from the incident that didn't happen and not the man who impetuously ranted about having his name dragged through the mud.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't you think a potential SCOTUS judge should be held to a higher standard than a criminal defendant?

No. That standard exists because we're afforded the same basic rights as humans. It doesn't magically change depending upon a particular human's occupation, status, wealth, gender, race, beliefs, politics, or any other metrics...

Just out of curiosity though....what standards would you like to go by? Try and think really hard about it before you answer....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah. It's probably the one who told her husband about something that didn't happen and has been in therapy and traumatized from the incident that didn't happen and not the man who impetuously ranted about having his name dragged through the mud.

No offense, but I listened to her testimony...and it's not all that credible. She mentions running into the other guy present during the incident (Judge) at a Safeway where he was working. For that completely untraumatic event, she not only remembers running into him, but that she was with her mom, which entrance to the store she used, what he was doing, the sickly pale tone of his skin, and the expression on his face....

Yet for the details of the incident itself, she remembers amazingly little.

One might think that she's keeping details vague specifically so they can't be confirmed or denied.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's true. And reflects poorly on Trump.

I've kept a reasonably open mind through all this. But the Durbin/Kavanaugh exchange today about whether Kavanaugh would invite an FBI probe has settled matters. For me, he failed the job interview.

Well if he said "yes" that could be used to argue for an investigation which, by the time it's resolved, even if it exonerates him...leaves him without enough votes to be confirmed.

Would you be opposed to a conditional confirmation (hypothetically) where they agree that he is confirmed if all three allegations were investigated by the FBI and returned insufficient evidence to conclude he is guilty of the allegations?

Basically, a situation where his confirmation isn't voted upon....but instead depends upon the results of the investigations.

 

[AirPo]

No...Feinstein sat on these allegations for a long time. Those are the facts. She claims that Ford didn't want to come forward with the allegations until the FBI investigated (which the FBI isn't going to do without allegations, duh). It's a nonsense excuse to delay the allegations until the confirmation.

They're playing politics in an attempt to delay Kavanaugh being confirmed.

Yes. Feinstein had a legit reason for waiting. The republicans did not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. That standard exists because we're afforded the same basic rights as humans. It doesn't magically change depending upon a particular human's occupation, status, wealth, gender, race, beliefs, politics, or any other metrics...

And yet it "magically" changes as soon as one goes from criminal to civil court, for example.

Just out of curiosity though....what standards would you like to go by? Try and think really hard about it before you answer....

Well, since unlike far too many of the GOP, I think it actually does make a difference whether he did it or not, and I would like to believe that we should do better than "probably not a rapist" when it comes to confirming SCOTUS judges, I think a preponderance of the evidence should be the standard. Who do we believe more?

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford. I don't believe Kavanaugh. His hysterics were a little to theatrical; he hit on too many of the GOP's favorite talking points.

 

[NotreDame]

Don't you think a potential SCOTUS judge should be held to a higher standard than a criminal defendant?

What higher standard are you referencing?

 

[DaisyDay]

Or it might not.

I'd be more convinced if the democrats hadn't waited until the last possible moment to unveil all of this. The fact that they delayed as long as they did tells everyone that:

A) this is a politically motivated attack, and
B) they're so unconfident in these claims that they didn't want to give the committee the time to investigate them soon enough to let the vote take place if proven false.

The time constraint is totally self-imposed and artificial. The committee can take however much time it deems sufficient.