I still don't get why Pubs have to slam thru a nominee who clearly lied repeatedly under oath and might be guilty of sexual assault(s) on top of that. If they are scared of an investigation and interviewing additional witnesses and accusers (as they probably should be at this point), pull the nomination and put another one up. They have plenty of time to put forward a nominee like Gorsuch, without all this baggage, and get him or her confirmed. Even if there is a shift in the midterms, they don't take office until January.
Well, I never claimed there was anything fishy about that in of itself. The point was that nobody can even come close to corroborating Kavanaugh was at the same party with Ford, let alone that an assault occurred. Not even her best friend. And so, as CaptUMSCNole said, what are the “witnesses” going to be able to tell you when they don’t even recall such a party or who Kavanaugh is?
For all of the talk about Flake being undecided, I’m not sure about that. Fox just interviewed Cornyn (the GOP Whip, the person in charge of making sure the votes are there). He seemed very confident that he expects the nomination to be favorably reported by the Committee today - which couldn’t happen without the vote of Flake, who is one of the 11 GOP members of the Committee.
I wish this whole process was more about truth and less about grandstanding, but it wasn't. And if you had actually watched you would have seen that the Pubs were happy to let the prosecutor ask the questions until the Dems started showing their ass. Then it looked like they had had enough of the BS and just started telling them as much.
You question him under oath for the same you reason you question Ford and Kavanaugh. To assess credibility. And in this case, potentially to impeach one or the other of Ford or Kavanaugh. This is standard operating procedure. And the fact that his girl friend has requested to come forward may very well help improve his memory.
Well she's already made a crap load of money, so the other two predictions remain to be seen. I wouldn't worry too much about her.
Yeah, no clue why Republicans might be slightly miffed about the way Democrats handle this entire accusation and might feel outraged at the way a political contract hit was put out on Kavanaugh.
Would the police come out in the exact scenario in which you laid out is a different question, as police resources are often at capacity. What I’m asking is should this be looked at if we had great resources (which in this case we do)? And also, this isn’t a criminal proceeding, so the standard for a determination is obviously going to be much lower. BTW, I agree with your supposition that probably nothing changes after deposing Mark Judge and the others, but when a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is on line, why rely on probably, when the cost is probably just one week of investigative work?
We don't know that Judge can't confirm that as he refuses to testify. And again, his girl friend reportedly wants to come forward. Which wouldn't be occurring unless she had something to say about what he told her contemporary to these events.
I don't care about any of that, because I watched the guy repeatedly perjure himself in front of that committee. As background, I grew up at the same time as Kavanaugh and was also a heavy drinker and a little immature. I also went to law school and have tried many cases, so I understand evidence and procedure, as does Kavanaugh. To start with the most obvious examples, "Boof" doesn't refer to flatulence and Judge's comment of "Have you boofed yet" wasn't asking about whether Kavanaugh farted. Devil's triangle wasn't a drinking game either. I used these silly terms when I was that age and I know full well what they mean. He tried to pretend that Whitehouse had his mind in the gutter for asking him about the Renate Alumnus issue, when the woman herself believed that the implication was that she had been Kavanaugh's conquest. Kavanaugh also wasn't confused about evidence and procedure. Whether the FBI draws conclusions or not is irrelevant and they don;t just fill out some little form. They gather information and they ask questions and they ask for other people who knew Kavanaugh and/or the witness they are talking to at the time. Then they go gather more information from those people. Sticking with the obvious stuff, let's talk about how that might be relevant. An example would be if they talk to all his football buddies form that time and find out that every one of them says that "boof" meant "butt-f***ing". That then starts to call Kavanaugh credibility into question. Moreover, it provides the committee (who are responsible for drawing conclusions in this matter) with relevant information that can be used to draw their conclusion. I can assure you that I watched half-wits get through law school and this is extremely simple stuff. Kavanaugh is an experienced political operative and a federal judge. Federal judges are very smart and very sophisticated as a rule, and I'm sure Kavanaugh fits that bill with his academic history. However, he feigned confusion about why an investigation would be useful, pretended that it just resulted in some useless form and went back to talking points about how he asked for a hearing when he knows that the evidence from the investigation is essential to being able to effectively hold such a hearing. He did the same kind of thing over and over about his drinking and other things. Now, do I think that drinking too much in high school or using words like "boof" or "Renate Alumus" are disqualifying? Absolutely not. However, a high school kid who is immature and uses those kinds of sexual terms and sometimes drinks too heavily is consistent with the kind of person who might do some of the things that he is being accused of. That makes those things relevant circumstantial evidence. I know it, you know it and I can assure you that Brett Kavanaugh knows it. So, he could have addressed it forthrightly and dealt with the consequences. Its a little unfortunate that such sophomoric stuff would come back to haunt such an accomplished person after 35 years, but it is what it is. However, in an attempt to hide it all so that he didn't have to admit it or deal with it forthrightly, Kavanaugh blatantly and repeatedly perjured himself. THAT is totally disqualifying. I've tried close to 50 cases and have taken countless depositions. Kavanaugh is a pathetic witness and an obvious liar. If he was the key witness for the other side in a trial (I realize it wasn't a trial), I would have been dancing a jig in the middle of the courtroom after that performance. Moreover, I would have torn him to shreds relative to what they did to him because they missed many opportunities to bury the guy. It was as pathetic a performance as I've ever seen from someone of that caliber (in terms of academic and career achievement). So, I no longer need to know whether he did what he was accused of doing by Dr. Ford, because I know that he is willing to repeatedly perjure himself to avoid scrutiny and get this appointment. That makes him absolutely unqualified. And that is before we even get to the temperament issues he displayed, the partisan political statements and the complete disrespect for anyone on the Democratic side asking questions which is in keeping with his history as a partisan attack dog (and inconsistent with what should be expected from a Supreme Court Justice on either side). Kavanaugh is a pathetic, partisan, wholly dishonest nominee. And once you know he is wiling to lie to get what he wants, it calls his entire testimony into question. He wants to get on the court to pursue an entirely partisan agenda and is obviously lying about that too. I really dislike Neil Gorsuch and he comes from a partisan family and I don't like his politics. However, elections have consequences and he earned his place on the Supreme Court. So be it. There are probably others on Trump's list that he could have nominated where we could say the same. So spin this how you want, but Kavanaugh is a perjurer that doesn't belong anywhere near that Court. You have to suspend any sense of reality or common sense not to see how badly he was lying in that hearing. They simply picked the wrong guy.
Thank Michael Avenatti. He gave the GOP the ammo to say that the reason they can’t delay further is because Democrats just want to use it to become the predicate to a never ending delay, with absurd allegations like that, which no one thinks are even plausible, being trotted forward and then insisting that we need more delays to investigate that kind of nonsense.
The fact that the Dems (and both sides in reality) have played politics with this nomination doesn't justify tarnishing the sexual assault victims and other witnesses who've come forward here. So, far the only person clearly lying under oath is Kavanaugh. And the other alleged victims and witnesses have not been heard. This clearly warrants investigation, or to pull his nomination. Confirming someone who clearly lied repeatedly under oath is a horrible precedent to set in its own right, let alone when there are outstanding allegations of sexual assault out there.
After the way Democrats have handled this entire accusation, what makes you think that they wouldn’t bring forward another accusation that has to be investigated? And then say “We’ll, this is a lifetime appointment, we have to investigate this too, but clearly there is a pattern here.” Or say the investigators didn’t ask the right questions and they want them to follow up on something. They are attempting to kill this nomination through delay and trying to establish a pattern of sexual misconduct and will want every single allegation investigated, no matter how credible.
Click here to support Help Christine Blasey Ford organized by Team Christine Blasey Ford GoFundMe Campaign for Christine Blasey Ford Takes Off After Testimony
By the way, I do believe that the Republicans' have a valid complaint regarding Feinstein's decision to withhold Blasey Ford's letter. That being said, it still doesn't detract from Blasey Ford's credibility.
How dare you talk like that about our future president! I do think this is a good point that there is a slippery slope, and the actions of people like Avenatti give the impression of sliding down it. Really, I wish that both sides could admit that there is a middle ground, where it is difficult to confidently weigh the credibility of an accusation against the costs of an investigation. Instead of both sides calmly admitting that this an uncertain challenge, we get both sides screaming that the other is unequivocally corrupt.
