Justice Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[Torie]

I will say again, that my speculation is that the Pubs due to the clock don't want to spend the time on an investigation. They would rather pull the nomination. So if it is clear that an investigation is needed after both testify, the nomination will be pulled. The clock, the clock, the clock. So I don't understand why if this is all good faith, Ford does not testify via whatever venue she prefers, as long as it is under oath. If it is clear that there is no way to know better what happened without further investigation, after she testifies, and holds up reasonably well, then unless K has an airtight alibi, obviously a further investigation is needed (which the clock will not accommodate), the nomination is dead. There will be no way K will be able to hold his soft votes.

This is fairly obvious to me. So in my mind, I wonder why Ford is stalling, and would be amazed if it holds, and push comes to shove she refuses to testify, unless something is wrong here. Sure more delay and knowledge of whatever others may testify to, and so forth, is something that she and the Dems would want, but I don't think the nomination will die with that approach if she refuses to testify absent all of the conditions being met.

I predict that she will testify without her conditions being met, assuming she is acting in good faith, which I do assume for now.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Grassley's not interested in letting this drag on, telling Ford she has until Friday to accept his invitation for Monday. Unclear if we will still have the hearing if it would be just another day of bickering at Kavanaugh. : https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/kavanaugh-ford-grassley-judiciary-committee-supreme-court/index.html

While business meetings typically happen on Thursday, we could easily see the committee vote occur as early as Tuesday, especially if the hearing scheduled for Monday does not occur. The committee will then move on as if this whole debacle never happened, with the next lower court noms hearing already scheduled for Wednesday. All McConnell would need to do at that point is keep the Senate in session until midday Friday, and at that point debate time would expire and Kavanaugh would get his floor vote.

[Sestak]

this is legitimately dumb. Despite the fact that there’s a very good chance that others can corroborate or refute her account, the committee refuses to hear from anyone other than Ford or Kavanaugh?

If they actually cared about figuring this whole thing out, this would make zero sense.

[Florida Man for Crime]

The only other person I have heard named is Judge.

If there is someone out there that will verify that the party took place, that would turn this on its head.  Why don't the Democrats just say that? 

Yes, other people at the party (i.e. potential witnesses) were identified and the Washington Post tried to contact them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Florida Man for Crime]

This is all a farce designed to run out the clock before Dems take back the Senate.

That would be a good argument if Dems actually had any power to stop an alternative nominee. But Dems have precisely 0 power in this situation and no control over the process whatsoever, and there is nothing that will stop McConnell from confirming someone else before the election or else in a lame duck session if he needs to, even if Dems win control of the Senate. He is McConnell, after all, the very definition of a ruthless partisan politician. It is entirely 110% in the hands of the GOP. Remember also that there is no filibuster of SCOTUS nominees any more.

[Florida Man for Crime]

I will say again, that my speculation is that the Pubs due to the clock don't want to spend the time on an investigation. They would rather pull the nomination. So if it is clear that an investigation is needed after both testify, the nomination will be pulled. The clock, the clock, the clock. So I don't understand why if this is all good faith, Ford does not testify via whatever venue she prefers, as long as it is under oath. If it is clear that there is no way to know better what happened without further investigation, after she testifies, and holds up reasonably well, then unless K has an airtight alibi, obviously a further investigation is needed (which the clock will not accommodate), the nomination is dead. There will be no way K will be able to hold his soft votes.

This is fairly obvious to me. So in my mind, I wonder why Ford is stalling, and would be amazed if it holds, and push comes to shove she refuses to testify, unless something is wrong here. Sure more delay and knowledge of whatever others may testify to, and so forth, is something that she and the Dems would want, but I don't think the nomination will die with that approach if she refuses to testify absent all of the conditions being met.

I predict that she will testify without her conditions being met, assuming she is acting in good faith, which I do assume for now.

I would say that could indeed be so, but it could also be that Republicans simply want to give a show saying that they heard out her claim (without actually examining all the available and potentially available evidence), and then dismiss her, say that regardless of whatever she says, she was not sufficiently convincing, and then confirm Kavanaugh.

In that case, she would be stuck in a position not dissimilar to that of Anita Hill - in Hill's case, there were other women ready to testify, but the Senate didn't hear them and simply proceeded to a vote. Similarly, Ford would be stuck with the Senate proceeding to a vote to confirm Kavanaugh without ever having heard from witnesses such as Judge and the other students who were at the party, and without having investigated to see what other evidence/witnesses/etc might or might not exist.

Which of those two scenarios are the case depends on what the GOP Senate leadership wants - you present the theory that they would rather pull the nomination, and that certainly could be the case (it seems like the most sensible thing to me, in any case), but it is also possible that your theory could be incorrect that that's what they really want.

[Torie]

The only other person I have heard named is Judge.

If there is someone out there that will verify that the party took place, that would turn this on its head.  Why don't the Democrats just say that? 

Yes, other people at the party (i.e. potential witnesses) were identified and the Washington Post tried to contact them:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With this detailed testimony (thanks for the link), albeit not under oath, by Ford, it is obviously to me that the named witnesses need to be interviewed and so forth and if they refuse, to subpoena them, and probably they need to testify under oath. I don't see how the Pubs can dodge that one. Ford doesn't recall much, but they might. And that gives more detail about what to ask K. I don't think there is any escape from this. We have names that won't talk to the Post, and Ford doesn't recall much about other details. The others have to talk. There are means to make them talk. Absent that, this nomination cannot proceed. It needs to be pulled, if the Pubs are worried about the clock. But who knows, the other names may be talking, just not to the Post. Depending on what is really happening, there may be more surprise witnesses if the nomination is not pulled. If it is pulled, that suggests what the other witnesses might be saying.

[Torie]

I will say again, that my speculation is that the Pubs due to the clock don't want to spend the time on an investigation. They would rather pull the nomination. So if it is clear that an investigation is needed after both testify, the nomination will be pulled. The clock, the clock, the clock. So I don't understand why if this is all good faith, Ford does not testify via whatever venue she prefers, as long as it is under oath. If it is clear that there is no way to know better what happened without further investigation, after she testifies, and holds up reasonably well, then unless K has an airtight alibi, obviously a further investigation is needed (which the clock will not accommodate), the nomination is dead. There will be no way K will be able to hold his soft votes.

This is fairly obvious to me. So in my mind, I wonder why Ford is stalling, and would be amazed if it holds, and push comes to shove she refuses to testify, unless something is wrong here. Sure more delay and knowledge of whatever others may testify to, and so forth, is something that she and the Dems would want, but I don't think the nomination will die with that approach if she refuses to testify absent all of the conditions being met.

I predict that she will testify without her conditions being met, assuming she is acting in good faith, which I do assume for now.

I would say that could indeed be so, but it could also be that Republicans simply want to give a show saying that they heard out her claim (without actually examining all the available and potentially available evidence), and then dismiss her, say that regardless of whatever she says, she was not sufficiently convincing, and then confirm Kavanaugh.

In that case, she would be stuck in a position not dissimilar to that of Anita Hill - in Hill's case, there were other women ready to testify, but the Senate didn't hear them and simply proceeded to a vote. Similarly, Ford would be stuck with the Senate proceeding to a vote to confirm Kavanaugh without ever having heard from witnesses such as Judge and the other students who were at the party, and without having investigated to see what other evidence/witnesses/etc might or might not exist.

Which of those two scenarios are the case depends on what the GOP Senate leadership wants - you present the theory that they would rather pull the nomination, and that certainly could be the case (it seems like the most sensible thing to me, in any case), but it is also possible that your theory could be incorrect that that's what they really want.

"They" contains a lot of names. I don't think all are in the same place. I believe the soft votes want to be able to make a good case on the merits on this one, particularly if it is an issue of the clock running for political reasons. I posted above that there might not be much of a case to rush this through, without forcing the alleged witnesses to testify, since Ford seems largely otherwise a blank slate, so there is nothing otherwise to confront K with, without them. All these other names need to say, if they remember anything, if necessary helping them to remember by putting them under oath, is whether or not they recall any such party, and if so, whether K was there. If they said he was, since he said he wasn't, the nomination cannot proceed. It should not take long.

[7,052,770]

The clock running out isn't really an issue. Trump could nominate a replacement on December 30 and McConnell could just call for an immediate up-or-down vote.

If this were a Democratic plot to somehow Garland the seat until 2021, it's clearly not going to work. Thus, it's incredibly unlikely that that's what this is.

[Florida Man for Crime]

https://twitter.com/SteveSchmidtSES/status/1042565811792175104


From Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Florida Man for Crime]

With this detailed testimony (thanks for the link), albeit not under oath, by Ford, it is obviously to me that the named witnesses need to be interviewed and so forth and if they refuse, to subpoena them, and probably they need to testify under oath. I don't see how the Pubs can dodge that one.

That's the optimistic take, but at the end of the day it requires Republicans being willing to do the right thing. But there is nothing that forces them to do so. They have the majority, they have all the power, they can do whatever they want, and they can ignore whatever they choose to ignore.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Remember a few days ago on this forum when it was Republicans bringing up the fact that the FBI wasn't pursuing this as evidence it was an unsubstantiated allegation, and it was Democrats/Badger saying this was dumb because it's not in the FBI's jurisdiction to investigate these matters?  Crazy how quickly positions get swapped.

Sen. Grassley has posted a letter to the Democrats on the Committee (pdf) explaining that Ford has a choice as to whether to testify in public or private, and whether the hearing is conducted by senators or by staff, and that they are seeking to interview Judge and the two other alleged witnesses who were at the party.  He also discussed the question of an FBI investigation and the Anita Hill comparison. (excerpts):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Separately, Grassley has asked Feinstein to provide the unredacted original letter to the full Committee.

[Green Line]

Remember a few days ago on this forum when it was Republicans bringing up the fact that the FBI wasn't pursuing this as evidence it was an unsubstantiated allegation, and it was Democrats/Badger saying this was dumb because it's not in the FBI's jurisdiction to investigate these matters?  Crazy how quickly positions get swapped.

Sen. Grassley has posted a letter to the Democrats on the Committee (pdf) explaining that Ford has a choice as to whether to testify in public or private, and whether the hearing is conducted by senators or by staff, and that they are seeking to interview Judge and the two other alleged witnesses who were at the party.  He also discussed the question of an FBI investigation and the Anita Hill comparison. (excerpts):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Separately, Grassley has asked Feinstein to provide the unredacted original letter to the full Committee.

Don't try and present facts or logic, please.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I have made a decision: If Brian Frosh does not prosecute Brett Kavanaugh, then he will never get my vote in a primary election again.

I'm sure he's shaking in his boots.

[brucejoel99]

I have made a decision: If Brian Frosh does not prosecute Brett Kavanaugh, then he will never get my vote in a primary election again.

I can't believe I'm wasting my 500th post on something that should be a given but a good prosecutor ought not to base decisions of whether to prosecute an individual for a crime on public opinion, & if you care so much about Frosh doing so that it actually matters more to you than him being, well, a good prosecutor, then that's just indefensible.

[7,052,770]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaughs-fact-check.html

Great summary of how far Republicans have gone in their smears and lies.

[Torie]

Senator Grassley wrote a letter to Senator Feinstein. Suffice it to say, Grassley is not happy with Feinstein. The letter is on line here for those who want to read it.

One thing that I assumed was going on, but had not been verified, is the Pub staff has been making every effort to interview all the known alleged witnesses (and invited minority staff to participate).

[Florida Man for Crime]

Another former student says that they remember hearing many times about this alleged attempted rape while they were at school:

https://www.facebook.com/ruyak/posts/10103111551183305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, the fact that other students seem to have been aware of this doesn't by itself establish the veracity of every detail of Ford's story. But it makes it quite implausible that this is something that is simply made up.

Perhaps, if the Republican Senate majority actually wanted to get at the truth, this person might be interviewed and find out what they know and who they heard it from, under oath/penalty of lying to the FBI. Then investigators could follow up with the people that this person heard about the alleged incident from. By definition, we don't know what evidence and other witnesses may or may not be out there unless and until it is actually seriously investigated.

[7,052,770]

One thing that I assumed was going on, but had not been verified, is the Pub staff has been making every effort to interview all the known alleged witnesses (and invited minority staff to participate).

Why in the world would you assume that Republican senators are acting in good faith on this issue? How much counter counterevidence do you need?

[Sestak]

Another former student says that they remember hearing many times about this alleged attempted rape while they were at school:

https://www.facebook.com/ruyak/posts/10103111551183305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, the fact that other students seem to have been aware of this doesn't by itself establish the veracity of every detail of Ford's story. But it makes it quite implausible that this is something that is simply made up.

Perhaps, if the Republican Senate majority actually wanted to get at the truth, this person might be interviewed and find out what they know and who they heard it from, under oath/penalty of lying to the FBI. Then investigators could follow up with the people that this person heard about the alleged incident from. By definition, we don't know what evidence and other witnesses may or may not be out there unless and until it is actually seriously investigated.

Read through the post again. What he said is that similar things happened a lot at the school. He wasn't there when this would have happened.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Read through the post again. What he said is that similar things happened a lot at the school. He wasn't there when this would have happened.

Oh, apparently he edited it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

Well Ford seems to have dropped the demand that there be a condition precedent to her testimony that the FBI do an investigation first, and replaced it with the more amorphous condition that "the terms be fair and protect her safety," and that her attorney will by phone chat with Senate staff this afternoon. But Monday won't work, and that is an "arbitrary" deadline anyway. Grassley had set 10:00 am tomorrow as the deadline for her to accept the Monday date. The drama builds. What does "fair" mean? Stay tuned.

[Torie]

The twitter notice also had its own thread, which has now been locked (because it was generating issues) and moved to off topic. What threat was in the link is now gone. This stuff should not be put up all over the place. And it belongs in off topic. So all references to it have been removed from this thread.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Patrick J. Smyth, who Ford claims was in the room during the incident, has now said it never happened: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/3rd-person-room-kavanaugh-attack-comes-forward-blows-story-apart/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-09-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

So now we have the word of 3 people vs. the word of 1 person. NOT saying Beet is correct about this being some decades long revenge plot (in fact Beet shouldn't even be allowed to be a mod), but unless there's some material evidence, which there likely isn't, this is looking kind of fishy. Maybe Ford is misremembering who assaulted her?

None of them have been interviewed under oath about this, there has been no investigation, and only one party is calling for the FBI to investigate her claims. There has also been someone who said she was aware of rumors of this type going around at the time.