Kavanaugh- Alleged victim comes forward

[saxitoxin]

Democrat Senator Manchin is considering voting for Kav now. The independent investigation by the independent FBI apparently exonerated Kav so thoroughly that even Democrats are supporting him.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5bb6 ... 6eda9be4af

[saxitoxin]

- White House seems to have blocked Kavanaugh and Ford from speaking to the FBI

I wonder why the White House didn't use this previously unknown power to stop Michael Cohen from talking to the FBI.

Was that part of a White House controlled investigation? Thought that was a DoJ thing.

The FBI is an agency of the DOJ. All FBI investigations are DOJ investigations.

https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart

You're saying that FBI background checks of Presidential nominees are not under the purview of the White House?

Sure. The FBI also conducts background checks of members of the legislative and judicial branches who need security clearances. It's not an agency for hire. That's why Ford specifically said an FBI investigation would be fair and accurate. Or don't you believe survivors?

[Symmetry]

- White House seems to have blocked Kavanaugh and Ford from speaking to the FBI

I wonder why the White House didn't use this previously unknown power to stop Michael Cohen from talking to the FBI.

Was that part of a White House controlled investigation? Thought that was a DoJ thing.

The FBI is an agency of the DOJ. All FBI investigations are DOJ investigations.

https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart

You're saying that FBI background checks of Presidential nominees are not under the purview of the White House?

Sure. The FBI also conducts background checks of members of the legislative and judicial branches who need security clearances. It's not an agency for hire. That's why Ford specifically said an FBI investigation would be fair and accurate. Or don't you believe survivors?

One of the nastiest things I've seen in this has been the mocking of Dr Ford. The nasty laughter of Kavanuagh and his friend that she remembered being echoed by Trump.

You know full well that the executive branch limited this investigation, not the DoJ, and you know full well that Trump elicited mocking laughs against Dr Ford to discredit her.

That was not right, it was not good, it was not fair.

[saxitoxin]

You know full well that the executive branch limited this investigation, not the DoJ

The DOJ is part of the executive branch.

Ford said the FBI investigation would be independent and credible. I choose to believe survivors.

[Neoteny]

Gross.

[Symmetry]

That was pretty bad, even by Saxi's standards.

[saxitoxin]

Agreed, Symm jumped the shark on this one.

[Symmetry]

Agreed, Symm jumped the shark on this one.

Damn right! *Slaps juke box" Oh Happy Days...

I guess the question now is why do you trust Kavanaugh so fully and completely?

[Doc_Brown]

The President stated that the FBI was free to interview anyone they wished. The only limitation placed was that the scope of the additional background check was limited to the sexual assault allegations and was not to get bogged down on the noisy side issues that are being constantly brought up. I am not at all surprised the FBI chose not to interview Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford. Both have already provided multiple statements and a large amount of public testimony given under oath. The FBI was directed to evaluate the veracity of the sexual assault charges leveled against Kavanaugh. The only reasons to conduct another interview of Dr. Ford are if one believes she is suddenly going to change her story or if there are additional questions related to the assault allegations that were never asked. Ditto for Judge Kavanaugh.

As for the duration of the investigation, one of the recurring comments from the Democratic side was that the Anita Hill investigation only took three days, so this shouldn't take the FBI too long either. The FBI stated at the outset that the interviews they would conduct based on a scope of vetting Kavanaugh against the assault allegations would not take very long and that a week was more than enough.

[HitRed]

Dr. Ford had no evidence. She had from 2012 to locate some or 36 years. Let's vote!

[Symmetry]

The President stated that the FBI was free to interview anyone they wished. The only limitation placed was that the scope of the additional background check was limited to the sexual assault allegations and was not to get bogged down on the noisy side issues that are being constantly brought up. I am not at all surprised the FBI chose not to interview Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford. Both have already provided multiple statements and a large amount of public testimony given under oath. The FBI was directed to evaluate the veracity of the sexual assault charges leveled against Kavanaugh. The only reasons to conduct another interview of Dr. Ford are if one believes she is suddenly going to change her story or if there are additional questions related to the assault allegations that were never asked. Ditto for Judge Kavanaugh.

As for the duration of the investigation, one of the recurring comments from the Democratic side was that the Anita Hill investigation only took three days, so this shouldn't take the FBI too long either. The FBI stated at the outset that the interviews they would conduct based on a scope of vetting Kavanaugh against the assault allegations would not take very long and that a week was more than enough.

Meh- they didn't interview Kavanaugh, or Dr Ford. Now, assuming you're arguing in good faith, would you consider an investigation by the FBI into allegations by Dr Ford against Kavanaugh to be thorough if they couldn't talk to the accuser or the accused?

I know you're partisan on this, but if you could put that aside for a moment before you answer- that's dodgy as all hell, right?

[Symmetry]

Dr. Ford had no evidence. She had from 2012 to locate some or 36 years. Let's vote!

Do you think Dr Ford lied? Simple question.

[saxitoxin]

The President stated that the FBI was free to interview anyone they wished. The only limitation placed was that the scope of the additional background check was limited to the sexual assault allegations and was not to get bogged down on the noisy side issues that are being constantly brought up. I am not at all surprised the FBI chose not to interview Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford. Both have already provided multiple statements and a large amount of public testimony given under oath. The FBI was directed to evaluate the veracity of the sexual assault charges leveled against Kavanaugh. The only reasons to conduct another interview of Dr. Ford are if one believes she is suddenly going to change her story or if there are additional questions related to the assault allegations that were never asked. Ditto for Judge Kavanaugh.

As for the duration of the investigation, one of the recurring comments from the Democratic side was that the Anita Hill investigation only took three days, so this shouldn't take the FBI too long either. The FBI stated at the outset that the interviews they would conduct based on a scope of vetting Kavanaugh against the assault allegations would not take very long and that a week was more than enough.

Meh- they didn't interview Kavanaugh, or Dr Ford. Now, assuming you're arguing in good faith, would you consider an investigation by the FBI into allegations by Dr Ford against Kavanaugh to be thorough if they couldn't talk to the accuser or the accused?

I know you're partisan on this, but if you could put that aside for a moment before you answer- that's dodgy as all hell, right?

Ford was asked 209 questions by an experienced sex crimes prosecutor. The FBI is probably capable of ordering a transcript from CSPAN. According to Ford (as of two weeks ago) the FBI are capable of conducting a thorough investigation. That must be true as I believe what survivors say.

[Doc_Brown]

The President stated that the FBI was free to interview anyone they wished. The only limitation placed was that the scope of the additional background check was limited to the sexual assault allegations and was not to get bogged down on the noisy side issues that are being constantly brought up. I am not at all surprised the FBI chose not to interview Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford. Both have already provided multiple statements and a large amount of public testimony given under oath. The FBI was directed to evaluate the veracity of the sexual assault charges leveled against Kavanaugh. The only reasons to conduct another interview of Dr. Ford are if one believes she is suddenly going to change her story or if there are additional questions related to the assault allegations that were never asked. Ditto for Judge Kavanaugh.

As for the duration of the investigation, one of the recurring comments from the Democratic side was that the Anita Hill investigation only took three days, so this shouldn't take the FBI too long either. The FBI stated at the outset that the interviews they would conduct based on a scope of vetting Kavanaugh against the assault allegations would not take very long and that a week was more than enough.

Meh- they didn't interview Kavanaugh, or Dr Ford. Now, assuming you're arguing in good faith, would you consider an investigation by the FBI into allegations by Dr Ford against Kavanaugh to be thorough if they couldn't talk to the accuser or the accused?

I know you're partisan on this, but if you could put that aside for a moment before you answer- that's dodgy as all hell, right?

If the FBI was performing a criminal investigation, then yes, they should perform their own interview. But they are completing a 7th background check on Judge Kavanaugh, for which they do not draw actual conclusions. They are completing interviews of those that can potentially offer further evidence relating to the allegations. It is the senators that will render judgement, and the senators have already interviewed both Ford and Kavanaugh.

As for my level of partisanship, I consider myself more or less a moderate independent and try to fully understand the position of both sides of any issue before debating it. My philosophy is that if I can't present my opponent's position in a way he would affirm and agree with, I should not be debating him. I did not and will not vote for Trump. I disagreed with the Republicans refusing to vote on Judge Garland. I would have voted to affirm him if I were in the Senate, and I would also vote to affirm Judge Kavanaugh at this point as well.

I really don't think the Democrats actually believe Kavanaugh is guilty of anything of any real importance (apart from being a conservative). If they really cared about the allegations, they would have brought them up a lot earlier instead of waiting until the last minutes. They also would not be defending Keith Ellison if they were consistent about believing women. The system of approving judicial nominees has been getting more and more political over the years. Or, more accurately, it has been a political football for decades. President Roosevelt was getting ready to expand the Supreme Court and allow him to appoint up to 6 additional justices that would rule favorably on his New Deal initiatives. In the 1980s, the Democrats absolutely eviscerated Judge Bork when Reagan nominated him. That's when they first played the "women dying in the streets" card as a consequence of someone being appointed to the court, which is why that play is far less effective nowadays. Then there were the contentious hearings about Justice Thomas, who was narrowly approved by a Democratic Senate. Following those hearings, Senator Biden said that should another Supreme Court seat come open, President Bush should not nominate another justice as a presidential election was imminent. The Republicans claimed that as a precedent in the way they handled Obama's nomination of Judge Garland, and they expanded on it. In the early 2000s, the Republicans were becoming very frustrated with Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees and threatened on multiple occasions to change Senate rules to end the practice, claiming that it was unconstitutional to filibuster judicial nominations. A few years later, the tables were turned with Obama in the White House and Republicans holding a large minority of seats in the Senate. Of course, they flipped their earlier position and decided that it was "morally required" that they stop Obama's nominees using whatever tools they had available (and Democrats did it first anyway, or something...). The Democrats hit back by ending the filibuster for lower court nominees. But as things go, the other party ended up in power again and used the same tactics their opponents had tried, but going just a bit further by ending the filibuster for all nominees. Meanwhile, the Democrats were again in the position of claiming a moral imperative to fight a Supreme Court nominee with any tools they could find.

tldr: It's politics; it's ugly; the senators from both parties are all largely hypocrites that likely don't believe half of what they are saying.

[HitRed]

Dr. Ford had no evidence. She had from 2012 to locate some or 36 years. Let's vote!

Do you think Dr Ford lied? Simple question.

Don't know. I'll never know.

Do I believe suppressed memories are creditable? No. She also called it "[i]a partial[/b] suppressed memory". Is that 10%, 20% or 30%? Imagine if you only had 30% of this very sentence. Would you understand the meaning?


------- if you ---- --- --- -- ---- very --------.

Would you convict/condemn/deny BK based on that?

In the end we must have verifiable evidence.

My child had a vivid dream she walked on the moon. She would swear to it even today! Did she actually walk on the moon? No. There is also no evidence that she did. Do you believe she walked on the moon Symm?

In the end we need evidence.

[mrswdk]

So Ford was subjected to hours of cross examination about her traumatic experiences by prosecutors, and Symmetry's response is to demand the FBI put her in an interrogation room and make her relive all the same things again and again just 'to check'? People like Sym are the reason more rapees do not come forwards.

[saxitoxin]

More anti-KAV protesters descended on the Capitol today. They sorta look like the previous crop of anti-KAV protesters.

And, I mean, even though they're wrong, I'm still glad this gave them the opportunity to get out and get some exercise. For the most part it looks like they just sorta plopped down on their rear ends as soon as they arrived but if they were ambulatory long enough to get inside the Dirksen Building that's still something, right? Great job, ladies!

[saxitoxin]

A second arrest coming?

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a friend of Ford's attempted to coerce one of the witnesses (the one who said the party Ford claimed happened never occurred) to change her testimony.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of- ... 1538715152

The FBI, in addition, have sent a large number of text messages it intercepted between this trio to the White House. Presumably this is evidence collected for further witness tampering charges in the coming days/weeks.

[saxitoxin]

GOOD NEWS!

KAV was approved in a non binding vote today in a resolution supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The binding vote will be held tomorrow at some point. Interesting sidenote, Senator Daines will be at his daughter's wedding in Montana tomorrow but the Air Force has a transport on standby to take him to DC to vote yes as soon as the vote is called so that the 87 year old leader of the Democrat Party Feinstein can't play any last minute dirty tricks. (Maybe they should hide her Depends so she spends all day yelling about "the pesky kids across the street" and forgets about the vote.)

Once again, another MAGA victory!

[spurgistan]

So Ford was subjected to hours of cross examination about her traumatic experiences by prosecutors, and Symmetry's response is to demand the FBI put her in an interrogation room and make her relive all the same things again and again just 'to check'?

An FBI investigation is what she's always wanted. See, that's the thing about sexual predators like Kavanaugh and Trump, they don't get that women get to ask for it. I mean really they know and don't care, but they can pretend ignorance.

People like Sym are the reason more rapees do not come forwards.

Symmetry is not responsible for the patriarchy, I think.

[saxitoxin]

An FBI investigation is what she's always wanted.

No, what she wanted was FBI validation, not FBI investigation.

Because she got the latter and the only thing that seems to have come out of it is a possible federal witness tampering indictment for one of her friends and a potential perjury charge for herself.

[spurgistan]

An FBI investigation is what she's always wanted.

No, what she wanted was FBI validation, not FBI investigation.

Because she got the latter and the only thing that seems to have come out of it is a possible federal witness tampering indictment for one of her friends and a potential perjury charge for herself.

It's a good thing they weren't allowed to interview the newest sexual predator to be nominated to the Supreme Court because Trump didn't want him to incriminate himself. Or talk to Ford. But I'm sure Trump's motives are pure; he cares of nothing but women's feelings. Just talk to his ex-wives, or the women (Stephanie Clifford, to name one well-documented example) he tries to pay for actual consensual sex because he doesn't understand how that works.

[saxitoxin]

An FBI investigation is what she's always wanted.

No, what she wanted was FBI validation, not FBI investigation.

Because she got the latter and the only thing that seems to have come out of it is a possible federal witness tampering indictment for one of her friends and a potential perjury charge for herself.

It's a good thing they weren't allowed

I wonder why Trump doesn't use this previously unknown power to block FBI
support of the Mueller inquiry?

Nevermind. I know you're just repeating what's on the DSCC's message sheet so won't hold you personally accountable for the random conspiracy theories firing through the synapses of an 87 year old's decaying grey matter. I let Symm off when he copy/pasted the same. It's all good!

[mrswdk]

Thought it worth going back to see what CC's own in-house legal expert had to say on the matter when this story first broke:

Sep 17th:

tgd: I tend to think he will not get confirmed.

tgd: Proof is largely irrelevant; accusations are sufficient in this instance.

Oct 5th:

Kav the Mav(erick) nomination approved by Senate

Say no to experts!

[spurgistan]

An FBI investigation is what she's always wanted.

No, what she wanted was FBI validation, not FBI investigation.

Because she got the latter and the only thing that seems to have come out of it is a possible federal witness tampering indictment for one of her friends and a potential perjury charge for herself.

It's a good thing they weren't allowed

I wonder why Trump doesn't use this previously unknown power to block FBI
support of the Mueller inquiry?

Nevermind. I know you're just repeating what's on the DSCC's message sheet so won't hold you personally accountable for the random thoughts firing through the synapses of an 87 year old's decaying grey matter. I let Symm off when he copy/pasted the same. It's all good!

Because the Trump/Russia scandal is being investigated by an independent counsel meaning the President can't directly do anything about it, besides fire his boy Jeff and his frenemy Rod in the DOJ and hope some stooge will do what Trump says. Shall I further define independent for you, or do ya got a handle on it?

The Kavanaugh scandal, meanwhile, is being investigated by the FBI at the request of the Trump admin to make Republican senators feel better about voting for a sex predator to take a lifetime-tenured position on the Supreme Court. I know there's a lot of scandals, but maybe the Republicans should try being less scandalous?