Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Mountain Man]

Tass, stop pretending you know what you're talking about, because you don't.

[Starlight]

It's all evidence nevertheless and easily resolved one way or the other by an FBI investigation, which is studiously being avoided by the Senate Committee attempting to rush the proceedings through with a 'he said/she said' hearing. Why?

Because they are worried that if they let the FBI do a 3-day background check/investigation like they did for Anita Hill that the FBI might not conclude in Kavanaugh's favor. So they have to rush the proceedings instead to get their pervert on the court.

Honestly though, rushing a man that much of the country views as an attempted-rapist onto the Supreme Court, is surely going to tank their election results in November even more than the record-loss they are already looking at.

[Cow Poke]

It's all evidence nevertheless and easily resolved one way or the other by an FBI investigation...

No, just no. The FIRST thing that needs to happen is for her to spell out what her claim is with sufficient detail to investigate. She has yet to do that.

[Cow Poke]

Because they are worried that if they let the FBI do a 3-day background check/investigation like they did for Anita Hill that the FBI might not conclude in Kavanaugh's favor. So they have to rush the proceedings instead ...

You are displaying your profound ignorance of the system, Star. They HAD "proceedings", during which DiFi never spoke a word of this, even though she had had the information since JULY.

[Starlight]

You are displaying your profound ignorance of the system, Star. They HAD "proceedings"

You're the one being (I presume willfully) ignorant here. The proceedings are whatever the committee decides to have and the timetable for them can be as long as the committee decides to take. They could ask the FBI to take a quick look at this, they'd just rather not. Your implication that they've finished the proceedings and so can't possibly spend a few days reviewing these allegations is "profound ignorance of the system" as you put it.

during which DiFi never spoke a word of this, even though she had had the information since JULY.

Yes, it appears she intended to bury the information and it was only leaked because another Democrat was horrified she wasn't going to release it and so stole it off her and leaked it. DiFi will hopefully be voted out in November as a result of her incompetence.

[Cow Poke]

You're the one being (I presume willfully) ignorant here. The proceedings are whatever the committee decides to have...

Yes, and they had them, and the Democrats didn't like the outcome, so they needed a wrench to throw into the works. DiFi supplied it.

They could ask the FBI to take a quick look at this, they'd just rather not.

The FBI had already declined to investigate this. If Ford produces enough information to actually warrant an investigation, maybe then, who knows. Why can't she just provide the information? Stay tuned, Star.

[Starlight]

The FBI had already declined to investigate this.

They need a presidential instruction to do this background-check type process into these claims like they did for Anita Hill. We are not looking at a potential criminal prosecution here (the relevant statue of limitations will have long expired), just a thorough review of the evidence.

If Ford produces enough information to actually warrant an investigation, maybe then, who knows. Why can't she just provide the information?

I don't know what you think you're on about here. She's provided her recollection via lawyers/media and is going to testify to the senate panel. What further information do you imagine she hasn't/might provide?

[Cow Poke]

They need a presidential instruction to do this background-check type process into these claims like they did for Anita Hill.

So they need an actual case to investigate like Anita Hill.

We are not looking at a potential criminal prosecution here (the relevant statue of limitations will have long expired), just a thorough review of the evidence.

What evidence? So far, all we have is her word, uncorroborated by anything or anybody.

I don't know what you think you're on about here.

I don't know why you talk so weird.

She's provided her recollection via lawyers/media and is going to testify to the senate panel.

Excellent - and if anything substantial or verifiable comes of that, there will be demands for an actual investigation.

What further information do you imagine she hasn't/might provide?

Gee... when it happened, who was there, how she got to the house, how she got home... you know, like... details.

[Starlight]

So they need an actual case to investigate like Anita Hill.

At this point just having them talk to the various people at the high schools that knew Kavanaugh and the women involved would be fine. Rather than having the media do it, it would be better if the FBI did it systematically.

What evidence? So far, all we have is her word, uncorroborated by anything or anybody.

There's been a huge amount of background information coming out and support from other sources. At this point I consider both women's claims pretty thoroughly corroborated. The stuff Avenatti's hinting at is interesting but much less proven.

[Cow Poke]

At this point just having them talk to the various people at the high schools that knew Kavanaugh and the women involved would be fine. Rather than having the media do it, it would be better if the FBI did it systematically.

This is a stall tactic, pure and simple. Again, DiFi had the information and sat on it. The complainant had said she didn't want the information to go public. There is so much about this that smacks of political crap.

There's been a huge amount of background information coming out and support from other sources.

Citations, please.

At this point I consider both women's claims pretty thoroughly corroborated. The stuff Avenatti's hinting at is interesting but much less proven.

Where were these people during the 6 FBI vettings of Kavanaugh in the past? Where were these people during the actual hearings? Why are we seeing these allegations after the hearings are already concluded?

[Starlight]

This is a stall tactic, pure and simple.

If it only takes 3 days, how is it a stall tactic?

Again, DiFi had the information and sat on it.

Again, she is an incompetent who needs to be voted out.

The complainant had said she didn't want the information to go public.

Presumably that was why DiFi decided not to release the information.

There is so much about this that smacks of political crap.

Indeed, a President under investigation selecting a nominee who conveniently thinks that Presidents shouldn't be troubled with things like investigations, does smack of political crap. Also that nominee having previously been a Republican political operative, IMO should be disqualifying, as putting someone who's openly been a political operative onto SCOTUS makes a mockery of the supposed independence of the judiciary.

Citations, please.

I've hardly been able to keep track of the dozens of stories myself nevermind repeat them all for you. You'll have to learn to google if you want to read more.

Among the ones I find most interesting are Kavanaugh's roommate saying that while Kavanaugh was normally a nice guy he became a very different person when drunk and that Kavanaugh tended to drink extremely heavily even by the (heavier-than-today) drinking standards of that time and that he can totally believe Kavanaugh might have attempted to rape a woman while drunk. There's also the fact that the second woman (Deborah Ramirez) who says she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh was not the one who brought it up: Rather others at the school who had heard the story of her being sexually assaulted at the time started emailing back and forth as soon as they saw Kavanaugh's name in the news saying "isn't that the guy who sexually assaulted someone at school? Who was it that he did it to?" and after they determined among themselves which girl it was the reporters swarmed to Deborah Ramirez, and her response was that because she had been drunk when it happened she had been reluctant to come forward with it.

A lot of the other background stuff coming out paints a nasty picture of the school boys being regularly extremely drunk and treating the girls extremely poorly. (Avenatti is taking this the furtherest by alleging there was gang rape or rumors of it.) Kavanaugh, rather than admitting to any of this went on Fox News and of all things claimed to have been focused on getting good grades and not a partier at high school. Yet his own yearbook page boosts of drunken keg nights and sexual conquests. The person who's testimony is by far the least consistent with the generally revealed background information from others at the school is Kavanaugh, who appears to be lying through his teeth about everything that happened at his high-school and not just the specific alleged sexual-assault events.

Where were these people during the 6 FBI vettings of Kavanaugh in the past?

The FBI doesn't have a magical detector to locate people who were sexually assaulted. But now they know who to talk to they can talk to these women and their high-school friends.

[Cow Poke]

If it only takes 3 days, how is it a stall tactic?

That's just dumb.

Again, she is an incompetent who needs to be voted out.

And yet, she's the one they trusted with the information.

Presumably that was why DiFi decided not to release the information.

Until it became clear that the process was going to allow K to be confirmed, then they turned to desperation.

Indeed, a President under investigation selecting a nominee who conveniently thinks that Presidents shouldn't be troubled with things like investigations, does smack of political crap.

Ah, so you ADMIT it's all political!

Also that nominee having previously been a Republican political operative, IMO should be disqualifying, as putting someone who's openly been a political operative onto SCOTUS makes a mockery of the supposed independence of the judiciary.

What does that have to do with the fact that he passed muster, THEN these allegations came out?

I've hardly been able to keep track of the dozens of stories myself nevermind repeat them all for you. You'll have to learn to google if you want to read more.

The FBI doesn't have a magical detector to locate people who were sexually assaulted. But now they know who to talk to they can talk to these women and their high-school friends.

Yet, somehow, you think they can do a full investigation of these very vague accusations in 3 days.

You ARE amusing.

[Starlight]

What does that have to do with the fact that he passed muster, THEN these allegations came out?

"Passed muster" from who exactly?

Kavanaugh's appointment was far from assured prior to these allegations. He had a lot of different types of issues as a nominee that were leading commentators to speculate that he wouldn't pass a senate vote. I would have given him a 2/3rds chance of doing so if I were a betting man.

[Cow Poke]

"Passed muster" from who exactly?

The due process.

Kavanaugh's appointment was far from assured prior to these allegations.

That's goofy - it was pretty much in the bag, and the Democrats were desperate to do anything in their power to derail it.

He had a lot of different types of issues as a nominee that were leading commentators to speculate that he wouldn't pass a senate vote. I would have given him a 2/3rds chance of doing so if I were a betting man.

"Commentators"? "Speculate"? The fact that it was even POSSIBLE that he would be confirmed was enough to drive the Democrats to extremism.

[carpedm9587]

Laying all that aside for a minute - there was a process. An orderly process in which both Republicans and Democrats participated.

DiFi had the information since JULY, and she was the ranking minority member, but it never came up a single time during the orderly process.

It's not like they suddenly discovered a problem AFTER the process.

To me, that's a huge problem.

It is my understanding that the accuser refused to be publicly identified until recently. I am also not a slave to "process," and it strikes me that Republicans appear to be a slave to process on;y when it is convenient. The president nominates - the senate confirms. In 2016, the argument for not even considering the nominee of Obama was "an election was coming and the people's voice should be heard." So the normal process of hearings and a vote was never even permitted. Now we have a vote that is weeks away, for the confirming body, but the argument "the people's voice should be heard" is nowhere to be heard. Yet there is no doubt that a judge cannot be places on SCOTUS without BOTH the nomination of the executive and the confirmation of the Senate.

I don't know the truth of what happened with Kavanaugh. I DO know the "process" argument holds little water with me. That argument was undermined when the Republicans changed the process to suit them in 2016, and then ignored that change (again to suit them) in 2018. Had they taken the same position both times, I would have said, "so be it - that's the process." The fact that they didn't suggests process is secondary to political expediency - for both parties.