Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-what-happens-geogetown-prep-828420

Okay.....local psychologist Beet, this mean anything to you?

[Yank2133]

I don't get why they haven't invited the other alleged assaulter and the therapist to testify too.

Republicans don't have an interest in turning this into a spectacle. All they need to do is placate 50/51 Republicans, so what Feinstein or Durbin or Hirono wants doesn't matter whatsoever.

Well, maybe, but isn't there an upside for the Pubs? The second accused denies it all, and the therapist could be asked if she thinks that the four versus two was a typo, or that she was told four, and whether K's name came up, and what the description of the perp was, and so forth. There would be a a particular upside if the Dems are not really pushing for it, because at least as to the therapist, they might have been in contact.

No one will care about that.

The optics is what everyone is going to remember. It doesn't even matter if Ford is credible, all that matters is if she can generate sympathy.

[The DEI Hire]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-what-happens-geogetown-prep-828420

Okay.....local psychologist Beet, this mean anything to you?

I realize you meant this towards Beet, but a lot of people do dumb stuff in their teenage years they hope never gets mentioned again, and I can imagine at an all boys school they get themselves into all sorts of dumb situations.

This doesn't prove anything.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-what-happens-geogetown-prep-828420

Okay.....local psychologist Beet, this mean anything to you?

I realize you meant this towards Beet, but a lot of people do dumb stuff in their teenage years they hope never gets mentioned again, and I can imagine at an all boys school they get themselves into all sorts of dumb situations.

This doesn't prove anything.

Thanks. "What happens in ___ stays in ___" is a pretty common riff off the Vegas quote and I'm pretty sure my buddies and I used it at least once for a trip somewhere. It means nothing.

[libertpaulian]

If she is reluctant to testify it is understandable. Senate Republicans are ready to attack on her.

If she's going to put herself out there like this, then she should be ready to face the consequences.

IMO, she should either face the music and testify publicly or rescind her story.

[Gass3268]

New York Times is reporting that she has already receiving death threats. Can’t blame her for not wanting to put herself through the abuse she would have to face in order to testify.

[Reaganfan]

If she is reluctant to testify it is understandable. Senate Republicans are ready to attack on her.

If she's going to put herself out there like this, then she should be ready to face the consequences.

IMO, she should either face the music and testify publicly or rescind her story.

Ok she needs an ultimatum. Come and testify, and tell your side. If you won't, we move on. We confirm Kavanaugh and he's on the Supreme Court for a few generations. That's it. It's one or the other.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Given that Kavanaugh has entirely denied being at the party (despite no one knowing when the party in questions exactly was), it seem like this could be boiled down into a very clear cut factual question.

This isn't a case of someone misinterpreting signals, or one person believing the other consented, or someone misremembering details.  It's a straight up Shaggy defense.

So couldn't the investigation focus on getting actual hard evidence of whether Kavanaugh was at the party?  If it's proven he wasn't there, he's obviously innocent.   If it's proven he was there, his defense has been entirely dishonest, and he is clearly unfit to be on the Court regardless of the details of the assualt.

If you are just trying to determine if Kavanaugh was at the party, you can't just call Kavanaugh and Ford.  You first need to determined the exact date of the party, and then try to get some third party confirmation of who attended.

It's possible that no such confirmation is available.  But I wouldn't be so sure.  
Once the date is established, it is possible that Kavanaugh, if innocent, could establish an airtight alibi.  For example, if he could prove that he was on vacation with his family that weekend.

On the other hand, if Kavanaugh was at the party, there might be people who can bring evidence about that.  People might not remember what happened on a particular day 30+ years ago, but a lot of high schoolers kept diaries in the 80's that they might still possess, and if someone at the party kept a diary, this could be subpoenaed.  Maybe someone mentioned in a diary seeing Brett at the party.
Someone at the party might have taken a photo; people who were friends of people at the party might have heard about what happened the next day.

The point is that this sort of evidence calls for serious engagement by professional investigators.  Senators just asking questions of Ford and Kavanaugh isn't likely to convince anyone.

[Alabama_Indy10]

If she is reluctant to testify it is understandable. Senate Republicans are ready to attack on her.

If she's going to put herself out there like this, then she should be ready to face the consequences.

IMO, she should either face the music and testify publicly or rescind her story.

This. ^^

[Reaganfan]

Given that Kavanaugh has entirely denied being at the party (despite no one knowing when the party in questions exactly was), it seem like this could be boiled down into a very clear cut factual question.

This isn't a case of someone misinterpreting signals, or one person believing the other consented, or someone misremembering details.  It's a straight up Shaggy defense.

So couldn't the investigation focus on getting actual hard evidence of whether Kavanaugh was at the party?  If it's proven he wasn't there, he's obviously innocent.   If it's proven he was there, his defense has been entirely dishonest, and he is clearly unfit to be on the Court regardless of the details of the assualt.

If you are just trying to determine if Kavanaugh was at the party, you can't just call Kavanaugh and Ford.  You first need to determined the exact date of the party, and then try to get some third party confirmation of who attended.

It's possible that no such confirmation is available.  But I wouldn't be so sure. 
Once the date is established, it is possible that Kavanaugh, if innocent, could establish an airtight alibi.  For example, if he could prove that he was on vacation with his family that weekend.

On the other hand, if Kavanaugh was at the party, there might be people who can bring evidence about that.  People might not remember what happened on a particular day 30+ years ago, but a lot of high schoolers kept diaries in the 80's that they might still possess, and if someone at the party kept a diary, this could be subpoenaed.  Maybe someone mentioned in a diary seeing Brett at the party.
Someone at the party might have taken a photo; people who were friends of people at the party might have heard about what happened the next day.

The point is that this sort of evidence calls for serious engagement by professional investigators.  Senators just asking questions of Ford and Kavanaugh isn't likely to convince anyone.

Dude, subpoena a diary from 1983? Have we reached this point?

August 1, 1983:
Totally want to see Madonna in concert next year! It'll be rad! Went to Grandmas after and she baked cookies! I wonder if Brett likes me? He likes me...he likes me not?

What do you think this is? The Babysitter's Club?

[DrScholl]

If she is reluctant to testify it is understandable. Senate Republicans are ready to attack on her.

If she's going to put herself out there like this, then she should be ready to face the consequences.

IMO, she should either face the music and testify publicly or rescind her story.

She should be asked questioned by Senators, not attacked. Just because she put her story out there does not mean she should be attacked under oath.

[Badger]

I support whatever questioning Ford will consent to - open or closed session, senators or lawyers, etc - but some sort of hearing must occur if she expects to be seen as credible and truthful.

Also, Judge does not want to testify:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mark-judge-testify-kavanaugh-hearing_us_5ba15f8ae4b04d32ebfd8c01

So, according to all the various Ford denihilist here who said that her possible, yet TBD, decision to decline testifying would essentially demonstrate she shouldn't be believed. I assume they all now believe that Mike judges claim that he doesn't remember this incident should likewise be discounted because he refuses to testify under oath?

[Gass3268]

I can’t think of any reason why she wouldn’t want to come testify. Nope not at all... /s

https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/1042188348125790210?s=21

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Given that Kavanaugh has entirely denied being at the party (despite no one knowing when the party in questions exactly was), it seem like this could be boiled down into a very clear cut factual question.

This isn't a case of someone misinterpreting signals, or one person believing the other consented, or someone misremembering details.  It's a straight up Shaggy defense.

So couldn't the investigation focus on getting actual hard evidence of whether Kavanaugh was at the party?  If it's proven he wasn't there, he's obviously innocent.   If it's proven he was there, his defense has been entirely dishonest, and he is clearly unfit to be on the Court regardless of the details of the assualt.

If you are just trying to determine if Kavanaugh was at the party, you can't just call Kavanaugh and Ford.  You first need to determined the exact date of the party, and then try to get some third party confirmation of who attended.

It's possible that no such confirmation is available.  But I wouldn't be so sure. 
Once the date is established, it is possible that Kavanaugh, if innocent, could establish an airtight alibi.  For example, if he could prove that he was on vacation with his family that weekend.

On the other hand, if Kavanaugh was at the party, there might be people who can bring evidence about that.  People might not remember what happened on a particular day 30+ years ago, but a lot of high schoolers kept diaries in the 80's that they might still possess, and if someone at the party kept a diary, this could be subpoenaed.  Maybe someone mentioned in a diary seeing Brett at the party.
Someone at the party might have taken a photo; people who were friends of people at the party might have heard about what happened the next day.

The point is that this sort of evidence calls for serious engagement by professional investigators.  Senators just asking questions of Ford and Kavanaugh isn't likely to convince anyone.

Dude, subpoena a diary from 1983? Have we reached this point?

August 1, 1983:
Totally want to see Madonna in concert next year! It'll be rad! Went to Grandmas after and she baked cookies! I wonder if Brett likes me? He likes me...he likes me not?

What do you think this is? The Babysitter's Club?

If a diary can conclusively establish that a Supreme Court candidate lied about an attempted rape allegation, absolutely.

[Sestak]

NickG actually brings up a good point. Kavanaugh has flatly denied he ever went to the party in question (the fact that he's so conclusive about having not been at that specific party sort of sticks out) - so evidence that Kavanaugh was there would mean he's lying and likely had something to hide (the language he's used doesn't really leave room for "I forgot I was there").

[riceowl]

she says she won't unless the FBI investigates first

[Progressive Pessimist]

NickG actually brings up a good point. Kavanaugh has flatly denied he ever went to the party in question (the fact that he's so conclusive about having not been at that specific party sort of sticks out) - so evidence that Kavanaugh was there would mean he's lying and likely had something to hide (the language he's used doesn't really leave room for "I forgot I was there").

I guess I could see that. Kavanaugh doesn't seem likable enough to have been invited to parties.

[Badger]

she says she won't unless the FBI investigates first

I thought the FBI had investigated. What additional investigation does she want?

Link please?

[riceowl]

Watching Cooper now

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html

[Dwarven Dragon]

she says she won't unless the FBI investigates first

I thought the FBI had investigated. What additional investigation does she want?

Link please?

The FBI dismissed the claim because they did not view it as pertaining to a prosecutable federal crime. Whether Maryland officials investigate it is an entirely different manner FTR.

I support whatever questioning Ford will consent to - open or closed session, senators or lawyers, etc - but some sort of hearing must occur if she expects to be seen as credible and truthful.

Also, Judge does not want to testify:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mark-judge-testify-kavanaugh-hearing_us_5ba15f8ae4b04d32ebfd8c01

So, according to all the various Ford denihilist here who said that her possible, yet TBD, decision to decline testifying would essentially demonstrate she shouldn't be believed. I assume they all now believe that Mike judges claim that he doesn't remember this incident should likewise be discounted because he refuses to testify under oath?

Sure, but that just means we discredit both Judge and Ford, so all we're left with is Kavanaugh...who flatly denies it.

NickG actually brings up a good point. Kavanaugh has flatly denied he ever went to the party in question (the fact that he's so conclusive about having not been at that specific party sort of sticks out) - so evidence that Kavanaugh was there would mean he's lying and likely had something to hide (the language he's used doesn't really leave room for "I forgot I was there").

Wait, did Kavanaugh cite a specific party (by name, date, etc.) in his comments?

[ND, SD, MT, WY, and ID statehood was and is unconstitutional]

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California should investigate these death threats, and prosecute the people responsible for making such threats. If you live in California, please send him an email.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If she wants to have an FBI investigation first, then they might as just go on and vote on him.

Ford and her lawyers know damn well that the Republicans aren't going to wait for any investigation of any kind. So if she doesn't want to testify, just go on and hold his nomination vote.

[Dwarven Dragon]

If she wants to have an FBI investigation first, then they might as just go on and vote on him.

Ford and her lawyers know damn well that the Republicans aren't going to wait for any investigation of any kind. So if she doesn't want to testify, just go on and hold his nomination vote.

The notice of cancellation for Thursday already went out, and the hearing is already scheduled for Monday, so the earliest they could vote in committee is next Tuesday, and the earliest date for the final floor vote would be next Friday.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

If she is reluctant to testify it is understandable. Senate Republicans are ready to attack on her.

If she's going to put herself out there like this, then she should be ready to face the consequences.

IMO, she should either face the music and testify publicly or rescind her story.

She should be asked questioned by Senators, not attacked. Just because she put her story out there does not mean she should be attacked under oath.

At a certain point this is ridiculous.  Witnesses who put together this sort of account events ought to be cross-examined.

If you were a nominee and someone had made an allegation against you that was false, but would destroy your reputation if it were allowed to stand, how would you wish the interrogating body to proceed?

Cross-Examination is appropriate in a proceeding like this.  There is a difference between asking about inconsistencies in accounts of the event and asking a witness if she led young Brett on, only to play the tease, or some tacky garbage like that.  

That being said, I am now of the opinion that Trump should pull the plug on the whole thing.  None of this is good for the SCOTUS and none of this is good for America, IMO.  Americans have an interest in the orders of their Courts being taken seriously and being obeyed.  That doesn't just happen, and it will be a step away from that if a nominee with the kind of allegation Kavanaugh has hanging over him (one that probably will never be fully proven or disproven) actually becomes a Justice.  "Mr. Justice Kavanaugh."  There is a problem when such a title appears oxymoronic to a large chunk of America.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If she wants to have an FBI investigation first, then they might as just go on and vote on him.

Ford and her lawyers know damn well that the Republicans aren't going to wait for any investigation of any kind. So if she doesn't want to testify, just go on and hold his nomination vote.

The notice of cancellation for Thursday already went out, and the hearing is already scheduled for Monday, so the earliest they could vote in committee is next Tuesday, and the earliest date for the final floor vote would be next Friday.

Well yeah.