Justice Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[fhtagn]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witness that are denying Ford's accusations are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Ummm...

Doesn't this statute only apply to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent?

try reading again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel like we're getting into the weeds here.

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't the witness have to make a false statement, in pursuant to an investigation/review, to the relevant committee of congress in order to fall within jurisdiction of the statute your citing.

For example, a false statement from a witness to a reporter wouldn't fall within 18 U.S. Code § 1001's jurisdiction, but a false statement to a committee member, pursuant to an investigation/review, would fall within the code's jurisdiction.

Bingo. Besides, the one witness's statement is made through Council. She can't be prosecuted for that. Nothing here can get any of these Witnesses in trouble. Yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the only clause where this specifically mentions it doesn't apply. This is not a judicial proceeding, and even if it were, the witnesses themselves wouldn't be party to it in this particular situation. This just protects the party and their counsel if the statement submitted was untrue. The witness can still very much face legal trouble if the statement they provided was false. Whether the witness has counsel or not is irrelevant.

[fhtagn]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Hypothetically that's true. However, the consequences are much stronger Underoath. More to the point, none of those exceptions to the rule apply here. At all. None of these so-called Witnesses have said a word that could get them into any legal trouble.

Yes, the consequences are stronger under oath, I never said they weren't. But false statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee can still land them into serious legal troubles with a possible penalty of up to 5 years in prison. That's not exactly a slap on the wrist for your average person with no criminal record.

[OkThen]

Sorry if this was posted already but new Fox poll has confirmation approval at 40/50.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-record-number-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html

[GeorgiaModerate]

Sorry if this was posted already but new Fox poll has confirmation approval at 40/50.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-record-number-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html

That's one big difference between the Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas situations.  Even after the Anita Hill hearings, Thomas remained quite popular and polls showed that majority supported his confirmation.

[KingSweden]

Sorry if this was posted already but new Fox poll has confirmation approval at 40/50.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-record-number-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html

That's one big difference between the Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas situations.  Even after the Anita Hill hearings, Thomas remained quite popular and polls showed that majority supported his confirmation.

TBF what BK stands accused of is much worse than the bizarre pubic hair stuff CT was up to

[Torie]

Sorry if this was posted already but new Fox poll has confirmation approval at 40/50.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-record-number-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html

That's one big difference between the Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas situations.  Even after the Anita Hill hearings, Thomas remained quite popular and polls showed that majority supported his confirmation.

TBF what BK stands accused of is much worse than the bizarre pubic hair stuff CT was up to

Putting aside that K was a minor, clearly. To me, none of that matters however. What matters to me are two things 1) is it more likely than not that K is lying, and 2) is there more than a remote risk that something will come out later after K is on SCOTUS that will raise a substantial issue as to his fitness to continue serving on the Court? If either one of the two is true, it would be very unwise to put the man on SCOTUS, even if one otherwise thinks he would be great judge, and one agrees with his judicial philosophy.

Given that more will probably be coming out, including in particular, the testimony of Ford, I have no real interest or motivation in trying to decide now whether I think 1) or 2) or both is true. That seems an unnecessary potentially exhausting exercise of my synapses. It won't be very long for more facts to come rolling in.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Sorry if this was posted already but new Fox poll has confirmation approval at 40/50.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-record-number-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html

That's one big difference between the Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas situations.  Even after the Anita Hill hearings, Thomas remained quite popular and polls showed that majority supported his confirmation.

TBF what BK stands accused of is much worse than the bizarre pubic hair stuff CT was up to

Putting aside that K was a minor, clearly. To me, none of that matters however. What matters to me are two things 1) is it more likely than not that K is lying, and 2) is there more than a remote risk that something will come out later after K is on SCOTUS that will raise a substantial issue as to his fitness to continue serving on the Court? If either one of the two is true, it would be very unwise to put the man on SCOTUS, even if one otherwise thinks he would be great judge, and one agrees with his judicial philosophy.

Given that more will probably be coming out, including in particular, the testimony of Ford, I have no real interest or motivation in trying to decide now whether I think 1) or 2) or both is true. That seems an unnecessary potentially exhausting exercise of my synapses. It won't be very long for more facts to come rolling in.

Or 3) was Kavanaugh involved in the attempt to deflect by smearing a random classmate, even if 1 or 2 isn’t true. That’s a fatal lack of judgment.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Sen. Graham says there's nothing Ford could say to the committee that would change his vote: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-ford-lindsey-graham-837391

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Thursday date is confirmed and has been scheduled by the committee.: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/407883-kavanaugh-accuser-set-to-testify-after-terms-reached

Looking forward to this unique chance to hear out both sides and evaluate this nomination more fully.

Also, I should note that this makes it official that McConnell will not meet his goal of confirming Kavanaugh before Oct. 1. Woot!

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

https://twitter.com/LACaldwellDC/status/1043928659688591361?s=19

https://twitter.com/LACaldwellDC/status/1043928980938792961

[Slander and/or Libel]

Sen. Graham says there's nothing Ford could say to the committee that would change his vote: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-ford-lindsey-graham-837391

But the blue avatars here won’t condemn Graham for already having made up his mind, will they?

[7,052,770]

It's fairly obvious that no GOP senators have a different opinion than Graham. This is all for show.

[Vespucci]

It's fairly obvious that no GOP senators have a different opinion than Graham. This is all for show.

I don't see any reason for Collins to vote yes, assuming we get a hearing. But who knows, she might anyway.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sen. Graham says there's nothing Ford could say to the committee that would change his vote: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-ford-lindsey-graham-837391

Headlines rather misleading:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[libertpaulian]

https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1043964244637745153

At least we know he's going to put up a fight to clear his name.

[7,052,770]

Does he really have comprehensive enough calendars going back 36 years to disprove anything?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Does he really have comprehensive enough calendars going back 36 years to disprove anything?

The article (use incognito mode if the paywall blocks you) makes them seem comprehensive, though Kavanaugh acknowledges they may not perfectly transcribe his life.

[gottsu]

It's fairly obvious that no GOP senators have a different opinion than Graham. This is all for show.

Maybe it's true that in this case people want bread (overwhelming pressure on BK since Ford's accusations) so GOP will give them circuses starting Thursday (Ford hearings but GOP senators would came with maked up minds about BK ).

[Gass3268]

Drudge is reporting that will be a report soon to drop of another woman:

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1043992758405533698?s=21

[GeorgiaModerate]

If there's another accusation that looks even remotely credible, you can stick a fork in Kavanaugh.

[new_patomic]

I'm supposed to believe that someone with a reputation for partying in High School kept a comprehensive social calendar, not just at the time, but that he still has it decades later?

What.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Drudge is reporting that will be a report soon to drop of another woman:

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1043992758405533698?s=21

I hate to throw cold water but Ronan never tells people his in the pipe projects so I doubt this is true

[new_patomic]

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1043992507288145921
Fake or not something is definitely going around.

[libertpaulian]

If more accusations come and Kavanaugh gets pulled, Dems can use the GOP Senators' comments about Dr. Ford as attack fodder.  They can attack them as stating on the record they'd vote for someone who'd commit this type of stuff.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Love to see what is put into evidence -- A whole lot of nothing.