Kavanaugh Hearing

I think that it would help her case considerably if they could narrow down on certain details. Also, if there was somebody that could place both of them at the party, that would back her account. No clue if they can find that, but the investigation could find things that are helpful to her account (or, conversely harmful to her account if she is lying).

 

What happens when the FBI shows up a Judge's or Smyth's door and asked to interview them and they say: "No, you have no power to force me to talk to you. I have already made my statement available to the Judiciary Committee and I am not going to comment on this further." The FBI has no recourse against anyone refusing to discuss this allegation, so why have them do it? Why not have have anyone who wants to testify in front of the Judiciary Committee request the opportunity to do just that rather than having the FBI try to investigate it?

 

If they refuse to cooperate with the FBI, it makes Kavanaugh look guilty. It sends a very clear message.

 

You don't think this accusation and investigating it could have been handled differently if Feinstein had shared it with Grassley once she received it?

 

BS. They would have submitted sworn statements to the committee on what they know. There is no way any lawyer would allow a client to be interviewed by the FBI about an accusation when there is no way to back up their accounts when the time and place of the allegation has not been provided.

Any good lawyer would tell the FBI, give us a time and place and then we will discuss an alibi for our client. We are not talking until you provide a time and a place.

 

This isn't a criminal matter, and neither client is at any risk. All they have to do is tell the truth. If they won't talk to the FBI behind closed doors, it sends a very clear message that they have something to hide.

 

I just said Feinstein mishandled it. I have no idea if it would have been handled differently. However, there is no impending deadline for Kavanaugh. They are choosing not to handle it properly. There's nothing preventing them from doing the right thing.

 

I’ll tell you the same thought I had when Axlerod advanced this line of thought on CNN tonight.

As everyone recognizes, the GOP wants to push this through to be done with the nomination before November 6th.

Conversely, the Democrats are doing everything they can to try to drag it out past that day. They were before this came to light (the very first thing a Democrat said during the first round of hearings was to request that it be delayed), they were when it was just a rumor before the Dr. came out publicly, and now they’re insisting that we need to delay to let the FBI conduct a largely pointless investigation (all they do for a background investigation is draft interview summaries and forward them to the White House - they don’t issue a report, they don’t try to make credibility judgments, in short they don’t do anything the Committee can’t do itself - and probably do better if, like pretty much every tribunal, you agree that live testimony is better than written summaries).

Because this is an inherently political process, it’s a little tough to separate Democrats now crying about fairness which, it just so happens, means another delay, from the inescapable conclusion that they intentionally “botched” their handling of it to try to create a basis for delay in the first place.

 

Let's be honest here:
1. The Republicans are trying to ram this through before the mid-term elections. Agreed.
2. The Democrats are trying to delay as long as possible. Agreed.
3. Feinstein mishandled this. Agreed.
4. The Republicans hold the Senate until January, at minimum. Agree?
5. The Republicans could still push a nominee through after the election even if they lose the Senate (which is unlikely). Agree?
6. The Republicans have the ability to handle this properly even if they feel the Democrats tried to screw them. They can take the high ground. Agree?
7. The Republicans are choosing not to do that by trying to push this through as quickly as possible. Agree?

 

4. Yes, but the Democrats are hoping that post-election they can get some of the squishy Republicans (see, e.g., Sen. Flake) to vote with them if they have a good electoral showing. Which I think has a decent likelihood of success as a strategy.

5. Yes, but see response to 4. You don’t let your opponent take a shot at a Hail Mary, because what the hell let’s see what happens, if you can get off the field instead.

6. They are handling it properly. Hear her out if she wants to talk to the Committee, vote if she doesn’t.

7. Nope, I think they are handling it properly.

 

4. I don't see it working. Flake and Corker have no backbone. They'll talk big, but they always fall in line.

5. Fair.

6. They aren't handling it properly. They aren't allowing additional witnesses. They aren't forcing Judge to testify. And they aren't going to investigate it. They're trying to sweep it under the rug. The issue with #5 comes up again here. They almost have to confirm Kavanaugh if they want to get somebody on SCOTUS before the mid-term election.

7. Disagree.

 

Because that is the normal process for something like this? The FBI conducts background checks on federal officials. This is "new information" pertinent to a background check. Hence, it is within the FBI's pervue to follow up on their report. Besides, why would anyone stonewall an FBI investigation? Oh...wait.

I suppose in the end,most likely the truth comes out regardless (the press is surely asking questions and can probably find a few of the same witnesses the FBI might find - that was how the Judge Moore thing started, a reporter following up on the tale of the guy creeping on teenagers at the local mall). I just don't get why the republicans would want even the appearance of stonewalling the truth. This is one of those deals where it would probably have been better if he just admitted it *if* it happened. Just say "we were both drunk teenagers, I don't remember it quite like she does", or something like that. By going so far as to say he wasn't at the party,the party that even the victim hasn't identified, Kavenaugh has set himself up to be possibly proven again as a liar. Then again, that is probably why Trump wanted him. Guys' both a liar and a team player, it's actually bonus points if he's a pu&&% grabber..

 

Supervisor X: Good Morning Agent Y. I have a case that I need you to investigate.

Agent Y: Of course, sir.

Supervisor X: There was a party at a house that was near a Country Club that happened sometime in 1982, maybe, the complainant believes. Anyway, there were several drunk teenagers there and we have a complaint that one young man groped a young woman.

Agent Y: Teenagers, sir?

Supervisor X: Yes.

Agent Y: Do you have the local police folder from the initial complaint.

Supervisor X: No, no complaint was filed.

Agent Y: Do you have the name of the owners of the house?

Supervisor X: No

Agent Y: Does the local juvenile justice department have other complaints on this young man?

Supervisor X: No

Agent Y: Has the young man been in any trouble since?

Supervisor X: No, in fact he has had an exemplary legal career?

Agent Y: You're really giving me a lot to work with here sir.

 

Check out Anthony Kennedy's FBI + senate questionnaire documents (the guy Kavenaugh is set to replace).

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/...&httpsredir=1&article=1113&context=historical

I imagine Kavenaugh must have had to fill out or respond to a similar survey (assuming the Trump WH had any vetting process at all, the WH has been very lax, so the only "vetting" may have been done by Federalist soceity). Take a note of some of these questions posed to Kennedy:

I'd imagine Kavenaugh must have had to answer similar questions, that might otherwise seem crazy. But not for a Supreme Court nominee. I guess with Trump as Pres, it's like we don't even have standards anymore. Not even if it turns out the guy is a habitual liar. Sad.

 

You mean like refusing to cooperate with the committee makes Ford look like she's lying, or at bare minimum... lacks confidence in her own testimony...

 

I have confidence can come up with some other reasons why a woman would not want to testify.

 

Are you suggesting because she's a woman, she'll be "bullied" by questions from the committee?

You think she can't handle herself because she's a woman? That's awfully chavinistic of you...

Kidding, not kidding... I don't actually believe you're a chauvinist for the record... Just being a wise guy...

 

My wife has called me far worse. Problem is she doesn't lie

I am suggesting that it's a legit frightening thing for someone to face. And when it comes to sex-based violent victimization, there are multiple and well-documented reasons why women (and some men) often don't come forward in the first place, and it says nothing about the veracity of what is alleged.

 

Every crime committed against you is a life lesson, but that doesn't make crime more acceptable to most people.

 

NTM, it's probably not common practice that people who lie in public ask the FBI to investigate their (false) accusation.