Christine Blasey Ford is currently being questioned in a Senate Hearing and her narrative is showing some holes, especially the "fear of flying" portion. For those of you just tuning in, she had asked for the hearing to be delayed because she was afraid of flying. What's been discovered is that she flies regularly and even flew to Maryland to get her polygraph test (which she admits she doesn't know who paid for & that there were only two questions asked & she can't remember if audio or video was taken) She also has no idea who is paying for her legal representation.
She's now being asked questions (on the record and under oath) about the timings of other events leading up to today's hearing. Her answers are vague and she states she doesn't remember a lot of things.
There is nothing in Ford's testimony that would lead any reasonable person to believe she is not telling the truth about the allegation that Bret Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.
The Prosecutor today released her write-up from the hearing - she completely exonerates the Judge. The FBI is likely going to find the same results in their investigations. We should expect to see a 100-0 confirmation then, right....ha ha ha ha - no way will that happen. But then America will also see once again that this isn't about any crime being committed - it's about delaying the inevitable.
The veracity of her statements is under fire for several reasons. For instance, was the worst thing about the alleged attack that he supposedly put his hand on her mouth or that they supposedly laughed at her? This is a huge problem in trusting her because victims know which one trumps the other and it is incredible to compare the two.
The description of being afraid he would accidentally kill her was compelling, but when one is under attack "I could be 'accidentally' killed" is not something that comes to mind so her statement came across as one that an actor would put together. The description of them laughing at her creates a question of whether they did cross paths at some time when she was a young teen and they did laugh at her, perhaps for attempts to behave like an older girl, and she has not forgotten an incident he would not remember.
A fair look must be taken at what both people said, as well as the people related to each of them, including the previous FBI reports. One has to wonder what would happen if the FBI investigated her now that we know things like how she used fear of flying as an excuse when she flies other times. A professor with many degrees who could not figure out how to contact the right people with her information? She's a little past the stage of being able to pull off the innocent little girl act. Pity for her is in order, but she has undermined belief all by herself.
This isn't the popular opinion but when accusations are made difficult questions must be objectively asked if there is to be a fair process. By that same token, objective consideration must be made about what is said by both parties. Remaining objective in a setting like this Senate Hearing obviously has its difficulties, but making it difficult was the purpose of those who held this information until the last minute when they could have handled it better if they were concerned about this woman, the nomination, or the truth.
I think what bothered me the most about that (I watched the whole thing) is that there weren't more than 2 or 3 questions from the Senators present - just political speeches, thank you's and attacks on Trump or Republicans in general. None of them seemed to care or question anything being said.
The prosecutor from the other side of the aisle, on the other hand, had nothing but questions - questions seeking veracity and truth of, not particularly the witness, but of what happened. Not until her final couple of sentences was there anything else.
To me that speaks very loudly about just what the whole thing is about in the minds of half of those present, and it isn't truth.
I too thought the Democrat pandering was the worst I recall ever seeing. They should be as ashamed of their behavior as they claim the Republicans should be of theirs.
Now, as the second half - with Kavanaugh, is about to begin, do we need to guess what their behavior will be?
The Democrats might still screw this up. If they attack Kavanaugh as enthusiastically as they pandered to the cameras praising Ford, it just might piss of enough Republicans to backfire on them. Not only on the nomination, but in the mid-terms as well.
Problem is, this hearing can't be separated from the Zeitgeist.
I know, that's the sort of word we leftist-liberal-social-justice-warrior-snowflakes like, but it's applicable.
There is a cultural shift happening in the country in relation to sexual violence against women. This hearing (rightly or wrongly) can't be removed from that social context.
I think it's within that context that a lot of the Democratic comments were being made.
But it should be pointed out that, in addition to statements clearly intended to show support for survivors of sexual assault (60% of which don't report sexual assaults because of the type of abuse Ford has received) the Democrats have also called for an investigation by the FBI.
Such an investigation could prove, or disprove, Ford's allegation.
In relation to backfiring, if Republicans pander to Kavanaugh, that may also backfire, specifically because of the current zeitgeist.
Based on his opening statement, Kavanaugh has obviously been coached to be more aggressive. That too could back fire, as he is just coming across as an angry man. And his "I have a friend who was sexually abused" comment was cringe worthy.
I strongly suspect Kavanaugh will be confirmed. But I also strongly suspect that will damage Republicans for the mid-terms.
The strength and truth of his opening statement may have already damaged Democrats more than they could imagine would happen. We'll see.
Yes, some of the Dems played their game, and some of the Repubs did the same. That's politics.
I behaved badly in high school (although I didn't do anything illegal to females), so I found myself a little sympathetic to Kavanaugh. It's possible that Kavanaugh did what Ford claims, but he was too drunk to remember.
But I'm not so sympathetic now. Feinstein asked Kavanaugh the obvious question. If he is innocent, why not have a thorough investigation by the FBI that includes a key witness, Mike Judge, who is now in hiding?
Kavanaugh evaded the question and started yelling about other things. He should have said yes, I support a thorough investigation to clear my name.
Guilty as charged.
Kavanaugh has repeatedly stated he will cooperate with anything the committee wants.
But the question from Democrats has become "Why don't YOU call for an investigation?" And when he doesn't turn and do it, they repeat the question. If the committee wants an investigation they will request one; to harangue the witness to demand it is foolish in the extreme.
Why wouldn't Kavanaugh explicitly request an FBI investigation himself?
It could establish facts that disprove the allegation.
Because there is no possible reason for him to play political games, and delaying the confirmation hearing is nothing but that.
OK, so why didn't he adamantly say he wants an FBI investigation and instead evade the question?
Because he doesn't particularly want one? Because he recognizes that joining and contributing to political games created to drag out his confirmation forever is not in either his or the country's best interests?
The truth is in the best interest of the country and the reputations of Kavanaugh and the three women.
Or everyone can just bicker about it and do nothing but argue.
I'm sorry; the Democrats on that sorry excuse for a committee have made it very, very plain that they are not interested in truth. Only in delaying confirmation - the same thing you are calling for.
I know, I know. All Democrats bad. All Republicans good.
Please read my posts before commenting on them. I don't see anywhere that I said, let's delay the vote just for the sake of delaying it.
Again, I called for an investigation to find the truth for the sake of either Kavanaugh or the women. As you and I both have said, Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty.
Now, please explain what is wrong with the truth. Is it good if it hurts Democrats and bad if it hurts Republicans?
You do realize that this person could have easily gone and filed charges with the Maryland police at any time, which because they involve a sitting US Judge, would have brought FBI investigators in on it. The Democratic Senators were looking for a sound bite, nothing more. The man has already had six FBI background checks done on him - seems to me that if he really was this type of an individual, that someone would have mentioned it in one of those processes. Also, the Judge knows that their is no established process for a Senate-led demand for an FBI investigation - it would actually need to be an Executive Order to happen. There also is no established protocol on what the FBI should or should not be looking at, if that was the case. We all know that giving anyone unchecked power, such as the Mueller investigation, would stretch on forever. The Senate already has an investigative group and they have been digging into these allegations since they were brought forward and have found no evidence that could be the basis for an investigation (her word isn't enough without some physical connections)
We don't know who the FBI questioned. It's a stretch to think they look for examples of rape and sexual assault in the backgrounds of Supreme Court justices.
The Senate "investigative group" is the Republican staffers on the Judiciary Committee. Hardly impartial investigators.
Mueller does not have unchecked power. He has a limited scope of power that all citizens can read in the authorization letter. It's unlikely that he will take the four years the Republicans took with Benghazi.
"Mueller does not have unchecked power."
Right. The check on his power is that he must claim that he "discovered" the potential crime he's currently investigating in the process of investigating collusion or anything that came out of that one. (This can be found by anyone reading his charge. Have you?)
Pretty big cliff, isn't it, preventing investigating anything his little heart desires. NOT!
Would you like me to post the authorization letter for the 4th time? Some people apparently don't click on the link.
No need - you've done it before and I've read it before. Did you (pay particular attention to the second and third sections)?
It was explained by him and others that he had been investigated by the FBI many times. Either the FBI does thorough investigations or they don't. All of their findings discovered that he consistently behaved with integrity, was fair-minded, and was a hard worker. If they hadn't done a good job in the past, why ask them to do it again?
But when they continued pressing him after he explained not wanting to delay for even another week because of what he and his family had been through as a result of their tactics they only served themselves a dish of sour grapes over being caught in the act. Frustrating him was their intended purpose, to their own shame.
The FBI didn't know to ask women at Kavanaugh's high school, college and adult parties if he had sexually assaulted them.
Can you please provide a source for that claim so I can read it? Do you know who they interviewed?
No, I do not know the people they interviewed, but I do know how thoroughly they investigate people with a solid record of the positions he has held. As well, the bar association's investigation would cover every aspect of an applicant's life, looking for anything that could disqualify them. It is difficult to understand why any who do not think they have already investigated his behavior in life well enough would want them to do another one.
Does that mean they are so incompetent that their investigations wouldn't have uncovered claims such as Swetnick's?
Seriously, do you think a thorough background check would not have uncovered those type of claims? I've heard that background checks such as for a Federal judgeship goes as far back as childhood neighbors, friends and acquaintances, high school and college classmates, and relevant job co-workers.
What the hell good is an FBI background check if it wouldn't uncover characterizations such as Swetnick's?
"The FBI didn't know to ask ..." Do you really want that on your headstone promisem?
Do you seriously think FBI agents doing background checks routinely go around asking women if they have been raped by a Supreme Court appointee?
Just imagine someone who hadn't been raped picking up the phone and calling their local newspaper to tell them what the FBI was asking.
Let's get real. My tombstone will be just fine.
Of course I don't think they would ask the rape question. Do you think they wouldn't ask about the other things? They certainly seem to pertain to character. Wouldn't that would be a point of the background check for a judge
You know, I'm sympathetic to Kavanaugh too because I'm a man and I don't want everything I did drunk at some party to come up for scrutiny. And it was 30+ years ago. And he was in high school.
On the other side, the cultural of white, privileged, ultra-rich, drunk boys who attend elite high schools is pretty well established. Conservatives like to wax poetic about our entitled society and culture and various minority groups who act entitled to health care or social services or whatever.
What about people like Kavanaugh who act entitled? I'm rich, white, and elite and I should be able to do whatever I want to whomever I want.
Which of his actions show him to think he is "entitled"? Paying for a Catholic high school? Drinking beer?
If so, there are an awful lot of "entitled" folks in this country...
How many of these folks have you met? "Humble" does not tend to describe them.
Now we have another witness to Kavanaugh's behaviors, describing him as stumbling drunk frequently at Yale (which is not a crime and no different than his peers).
promisem, I think your response says more tha you can imagine.
First, I strongly believe the Democrat push to get Kavanaugh to say he wanted an FBI investigation was a purely political push to get validation for their demands for a delay in the confirmation.
So, I strongly disagree with your perspective.
How do you answer these...
!. The Democrats had 30+ days to ask for an FBI investigation - before it came down to these final hearings today. Why didn't they ask the committee for an FBI investigation? Remember., there was testimony that the committee does have, and has used in the past, a process for investigating anonymous claims. Feinstein could have had the investigation, and, protected Blasey/Ford's anonymity.
2. The Democrats, (Feinstein, at least), knew about these allegations well before their interviews of Kavanaugh - yet never asked him about it.
3. Feinstein in particular, not only knew about the accusations, but apparently helped Blasey/Ford pick a lawyer at least 13 days before her interview with Kavenaugh - yet she did not ask him about it.
So, if the failure to ask for an FBI investigation is so damning for you, why isn't it first damning for the Democrats?
And the kicker, Kavanaugh repeatedly said he would be for whatever the committee decided it wanted from him, which would include an FBI investigation - so why was it so important for the democrats to get Kavanaugh to say the words - if not for the political benefit of an additional voice validating their delay tactic?
I think you have placed your faith on a false idol.
You are focusing on the process more than on whether or not a man who has sexually assaulted women might be appointed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. You said you find both to be credible. Who has the greater motivation to lie?
"man who has sexually assaulted women"
Most of the country understands "innocent until proven guilty". Don't make the mistake of thinking they declare guilt because of a Trump association. To date the ONLY indication of guilt is the testimony of a single person that couldn't keep her story straight, while all other eye witnesses deny anything at all happened.
You and I obviously have different standards of character for many positions, from police officer to President of the United States to Supreme Court judge.
Might as well leave it at that.
Poor Brett cried because his supporters believe him so much they are rushing through an appointment to the highest court in the land without calling any other witnesses. Poor, poor Brett.
Never mind. He'll be confirmed so he can rule that a sitting president can't be indicted. Oh, and he has some abortion rulings to make. Republican mistresses excepted, of course.
Now that is just 'catty,' (yes, I understand how that sounds coming from a guy), Prettypanther. My view is that that is below you.
Yes, it is. However, do you think his position on whether a President can be indicted was a factor in Trump choosing him? His abortion views are simply a bonus for Trump's base. Trump doesn't give a hoot about that.
And, it's always fascinating how some pro-life men suddenly change their tune
when it's convenient for them. Secretly, of course.
As for Brett, he's being protected by men in power. I can't feel too sorry for him and his outrage at having to answer for his actions.
His decisions are based on The Constitution.
Do YOU believe in partial birth abortion, Pretty Panther?
I believe in a woman's right to make her own decisions within the bounds of the law. That's all I'll say on the subject as I really don't want to get into an abortion debate.
Thank You for not opening that door on this thread.
That sounds like you think the end justifies the means PrettyPanther. You disagree with his 'interpreted'positions based on what you read other people saying.
For instance, it wasn't until page 2 of a Google search, (#19 of 20), that I found the actual statements and positions of Kavanaugh - rather than the 19 other "interpretations" of what he said. Is your opinion based on more than just something you heard or intepretation you read?
Kavanaugh does not believe the president is above the law and cannot be investigated. He just believes that constitutionally, and by decades of DOJ findings, a Congressional investigation must come first.
Here is what Kavanaugh said in one paper:
"Judge Kavanaugh writes in the Georgetown Law Journal:
The Constitution of the United States contemplated, at least by implication, what modern practice has shown to be the inevitable result. The Framers thus appeared to anticipate that a President who commits serious wrongdoing should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate—and then prosecuted thereafter. The Constitution itself seems to dictate, in addition, that congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal investigation when the President is the subject of investigation, and that criminal prosecution can occur only after the President has left office."
*other Constitutional scholars agree with this interpretation.
**this is the interpretation the DOJ has held since Nixon's time
***Kavanaugh, as part of Ken Starr's team, said Clinton should possibly be criminally investigated and indicted after impeachment.
As to his abortion views, to you; "... fascinating how some pro-life men suddenly change their tune when it's convenient for them... ", it seems he automatically not to be trusted because he is a man. Really? That is enough for you?
If you are going to be against a a guy, it should be for true reasons, not just because he's a guy, and someone else said something - even though it was incorrect - that appeals to you.
Of course he has powerful people trying to protect him, just as he has powerful people trying to bring him down. Yet he is guilty in your mind only because you choose to believe the accuser over the accused - not because there is evidence to guide you to that choice.
GA, yes, I believe her. If this were a trial, I would have to find him not guilty because it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, with the limited evidence available, that he assaulted her.
However, this is not a trial, it is a consideration for appointment to the highest court in the land. I cannot control the dirty politics engaged in by the Democrats and the Republicans. It has no bearing on who I believe nor should it have bearing on judging whether he is fit to be a Supreme Court justice.
It is a judgment call. I think Trump can find a nominee who is suitable. This man is not.
Not according to you, I'm afraid. Do I not recall an opinion you posted that anything and everything coming from Trump is automatically "bad" and should be fought against?
Nice Catch 22. Hard to prove someone guilty or innocent of sexual assault if the people in power oppose an investigation.
Even harder when 100% of witnesses dispute the claim, isn't it?
If you're talking about the alleged attempted rape claims by Dr. Ford, try not to mislead: 100% of witnesses don't necessarily say they're positive it didn't happen:
Oh? Which one said it happened? Which one backed Ford's tale? Or that of the other two liars, for that matter?
Geez, calm down wilderness, you don't seem anything like 'dark' Brett Kavanot, the angry, unhinged, volcanic tempered, multiple personality, sobbing snow flake white guy who showed up in uncontrollable flowing tears and slobber for that republican charade yesterday:
Even the other creep Mark Judge in the room as alleged, said something like he didn't recall what happened, I don't believe he ever said it didn't happen and by the way, according to press reports, he's an admitted recovering alcoholic and black out drunk and everyone now knows after that unhinged performance yesterday, Brett is probably lying about his drinking habits as well:
Just remember, only liars refuse to take a polygraph test and refuse to call for an FBI investigation to clear his name if it can be: Dr. Ford has a corroborating polygraph test which lends much credibility to her allegations that 'Dark Brett' attempted to rape her, where's Brett's lie detector test results? Will we the people ever see it before Bozo Trump decides to show us his tax returns that have been under audit since Custer's last stand?? I wouldn't hold my breath:
"Mark Judge, Kavanaugh classmate who wrote of 'drinking and smoking and hooking up,' goes silent"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … wasted-ta/
"Mark Judge’s book validates Christine Blasey Ford’s timeline of the alleged Kavanaugh assault"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 8bca3589c9
What witnesses? The ones the FBI and Republican staffers refuse to interview or bring before the Judiciary Committee?
PrettyPanther, this one is a struggle for me. My reasoning is tainted by the democrats' actions.
Consider the points I posed to promisem, how do you explain that - other then pure politics?
I can't, so my intake of Blasey/Ford's accusations/testimony is handicapped from the start. That is solely the democrats' fault for their underhanded tactics - as I see it. But ... it is a handicap that I try to allow for in determining who to believe.
So, I did find Blasey/Ford to be a credible witness. Then, Kavanaugh came out swinging - at the Democrat process I just mentioned. A plus in my view.
I place absolutely no importance on whether or not Kavanaugh would say he would want an FBI investigation. He wouldn't offer the democrats the words they wanted to hear, but he did offer, via his declaration that he would do anything the committee asked, that he would have no problem with an FBI investigation - something surely in the committee's power.
So any of you that do place importance on that aspect are just following the party line - as I see it. And that is a shady place to be.
Now, as you say, to get beyond the process...
To Blasey/Ford's credit: (my perspectives)
1. She came across as credible, and not a partisan operator.
2. I think many of us, (our age group, and I am speaking from a male perspective), can see teenage boys being just as she described. I think many of us can imagine a drunk teenager doing just as she described - not as an act of an evil purpose-driven rapist, but as a drunken teenage boy, (understand that is not intended to diminish the effect on Blasey/Ford, or the act), including the immediate ending of the the attempted act and laughing and bouncing off the walls down the stairs.
Even worse, from my perspective as a non-rich white boy, I can see the generational acceptance of that as a "rich-boy entitled behavior" generalization.
I can accept her explanation, and description, that she felt it was her "civic duty" to come forward.
So far, considering my view of Blasey/Ford's testimony - it isn't looking good for Kavanaugh.
Then comes Kavanaugh's turn. As mentioned, I think the democrats' actions suck, so Kavanaugh's fiery opening statement appealed to me.
Notice, I am trying to be fair, but the taint of the democrats is an obstacle. That is their own fault. How many Republican-leaning folks feel the same? Just consider, had they not tried a dirty political trick - we could have had an investigation that would have, possibly, provided us with more answers. Then it truly would have been a who-do-we-believe decision. Instead, look where we are.
I think Kavanaugh presented a case for reasonable doubt. For the most part, (there are exceptions that fit right in with your perspective), I found his testimony credible. Without the Democrats' actions I think I would find enough negatives to side with Blasey/Ford.
But with that negative perspective, (for me), I feel my only choice is to weigh credible evidence, instead of what my gut says, and that die falls to Kavanaugh.
And even worse, even worse than the divide and indecision this spectacle has caused. Even worse than the wrong done to whichever party is really telling the truth, and even worse than the taint this carries to the Supreme Court - regardless of how the decision goes...
... I do not believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed. Even if it is a national disgrace to wrongly destroy a good man, even if he is completely innocent, the damage he would do by attaining a seat on the bench, the taint he would carry to the court - because of the democrats' tactics, cannot be balanced by doing justice to one man.
And that is a damn shame. I think Judge Kavanaugh would have made a good Supreme Court justice, I do not believe juvenile high school antics, (I know, that certainly demeans sexual assault doesn't it), should negate decades of exemplary adult accomplishments.
Rich entitled white kid or not, this man has lived a life few of us have the character to aspire to. This man has lived a life of disciplined aspirations that a rare few of us have the character to even contemplate. But many of us will criticize out of envy.
Yeah, rich white kid, he deserves our condemnation for an adolescent mistake because if we knock him down we will feel better about how much less disciplined, motivated, and driven we are in our lives. Let's take them down a notch or two so we aren't quite so far below them.
Damn dirty politics. Look what the democrats have accomplished. And any that want to say they averted the tragedy of putting a sexual predator on the Court can kiss my butt. Until you find someone that is pure from birth you can keep kissing my butt.
Here's an open challenge; Justify Feinstein's behavior! Justify not bringing the letter to the committee when it came. Justify not asking for an investigation immediately. Justify not sharing the information until all other efforts had failed. And for the committee democrat members, ha! Just try to justify their pandering to the cameras!
I won't make you guess about how I really feel, (LOL), I am pissed. two good lives destroyed due to slimy political decisions. And, for all we can really know, our nation deprived of the benefits of a man trying to live his life to achieve good putting that same effort in ensuring our Supreme Court followed the same path - doing the right thing for our nation's citizens.
I most certainly do not align with many Republican planks, but if there is such a thing as karma, I certainly hope it pays a visit to most of the democrats on that committee.
GA, I cannot justify the political tactics of the Democrats any more than I can justify the political tactics of the Republicans with regard to Merrick Garland. They are both despicable.
However, whose political shenanigans you despise the most should not be a factor in deciding whether a man is worthy of the Supreme Court.
His angry tirade that you are so sympathetic to was not well received by many, especially when he referred back to Clinton as though that had any bearing at all on Professor Ford's allegations against him. It showed a man blaming others for the predicament he is in, as is typical of an entitled asshole not used to having to answer for his behavior.
Every person on TV I have seen express sympathy for that tirade is male. Us women know his kind. Many men do, too, but many men are also very much like him.
Dems of the Left have been against him for years. He probably has had to fight against them and their accusations his whole career.
It showed a man blaming others for the predicament he is in, as is typical of people being railroaded into a place not of their making. The Democrats on this committee had an ability to avoid all of this by simply bringing the information forth when it was received - they did not do so, choosing instead to ruin a life for possible political gains.
GA, my position quite clearly is neutral about the political games of Republicans and Democrats. I care about the truth, which was why I was givng Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt -- until he said no to an investigation.
Honestly, I think your position says more about bias than mine. You oppose an investigation because the Democrats want one for political gain. So what? The Republicans believe they gain politically by opposing one.
So to answer your questions, I say none of them change anything. The political motivations of both parties are irrelevant. The truth matters much more.
The parties and party supporters like the ones on here can make wild claims and battle all day long. It won't change anything as long as the battles are based on opinion and not fact.
An FBI investigation is simply the right and logical thing to do. If Kavanaugh is telling the truth, it will clear his name. The three women can go to jail for lying to Congress.
More in support of my point, the American Bar Association, which supported Kavanaugh, now says there should be an investigation. Democratic grandstanding didn't stop them either -- nor did the phony outrage of Lindsey Graham.
Regarding your final comment, I clearly heard Kavanaugh asked and then evade the question of an investigation. Kicking it back to the committee is political BS because he knows they won't allow one.
"...until he said no to an investigation."
Except he didn't say no to an investigation, now did he? What he DID say (by actions, not words) is "I will not try and force the committee into an action it does not want to take, but I WILL cooperate with any action it DOES take".
Two very, very different things, and just because Democratic leadership wishes to delay confirmation hearings does NOT mean that Kavanaugh could, or should, participate in such games.
We are stuck at odds promisem, the only political BS I see is this assertion that because he would not say the words the dems wanted he is afraid of an investigation.
I see other comments here on the same point - and every one seems to come to the same point. One side believes he is guilty because he won't help the democrats delay his nomination - other than perspective, where is the support for that? And the other side can't understand why his agreement to cooperate with any action can't be accepted as agreeing to whatever the committee decides - including an FBI investigation?
I wouldn't hand an assailant a weapon to use to harm me either. Or do the assailant's job and harm myself with his weapon.
However, as I listen to the news, it seems this may be a moot discussion. There appears to be a 'short delay' agreement in the committee, and more news and an offer from Mark Judge.
I will gladly accept your 'I told you so's' if this alters the picture, just as I will surely lump you in with the Dems and the supporters of their actions - you, if nothing new surfaces.
No effort I can make finds any other rational for this "He won't ask for an FBI investigation," mantra than just a bull hockey mob pile-on mentality. I really do think, as harsh as it sounds, (remember I do usually try to be civil and un-offending), that to push such an argument is ... (whew, civility grabbed me just as I was reaching for the keyboard) ...... pure partisan... Stop it get away from there... ...ummmph ... ummmph ... Ha! I unplugged the keyboard! But I bet you get my drift.
GA, I disagree with your disagreement, so to speak. There is no need for "I told you so" either way.
In my case, when I said guilty as charged, I was saying he had destroyed his credibility with me by opposing an FBI investigation. He can't claim he he is innocent but reject the means of proving his innocence. As I have already said several times, he is innocent until proven guilty.
In your case, I don't see how your anger at one political party should cancel a search for the truth, especially when it could benefit Kavanaugh. It rises above partisanship.
After all, we're talking about a Supreme Court nominee accused of assault and even gang rape.
Just imagine what would happen to Republicans if they rejected an investigation now, voted to confirm him and then other allegations come out. They would get crucified by independent voters, especially women.
The truth will help the GOP avoid that possibility.
Regardless, I wonder if this new delay means that Kavanaugh will soon withdraw his name from the process. The entire mess will go away. Trump will name instead a woman like Amy Coney Barrett, who will help repair damage with women voters.
But, but, you illustrated why we are stuck.
He didn't "oppose" an FBI investigation - he just refused to play the democrats' game. I see those as different things. Apparently you don't. So we are "stuck."
I keep saying the same thing. Somehow if Kavanaugh refuses to play the Democratic game that has caused him so much personal agony and harm he isn't "cooperating" and "opposes" any investigation. He is expected to play the game - to try and force the judiciary committee into something it doesn't want to do - because Democrats might, possibly, benefit from it in November and because it gives them more time to cause Kavanaugh, his family and Ford more harm than they already have.
I would have absolutely loved to see him turn and request that Trump order an investigation...followed by a comment from Trump that he will not interfere in committee business; that the committee will do as it sees fit without him or Kavanaugh interfering in how it performs its duties.
I think Pres. Trump just did that, (toss the ball onto the Senate's court), a few minutes ago. He responded to a question about it and said he would let the Senate do what they thought best.
I'll have to look for that. Hadn't heard anything.
Close but no cigar. He has ordered an investigation "limited to current credible allegations against the nominee" and ordered that it "must be completed no later than one week from today <Friday, 9/28>."
According to another member here, Democrats immediately cried that it would take "more than 5 weeks" to complete...after the midterms, just as you've suggested. And begging for a 4 day delay, not a week. I want your crystal ball, please. I'll pay good money.
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2 … gh_ch.html
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/340 … ost4033001
GA, Do you believe in you heart that these political shenanigans somehow minimize the fact that Professor Ford spoke of these allegations long before Brett was being considered for the SC?
She should be taken seriously, despite the partisan behavior. Politics will always be nasty. What truly matters is whether Brett K has the character and qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. That question should be considered without concern over which party "wins. "
PrettyPanther, I could refer you to a previous comment, (you responded to it), that I thought quite clearly spoke of what was in my heart, but I will just summarize it.
I found Blasey/Ford's testimony credible. But I also found Kavanaugh's testimony credible.
I find those 'we all know' instinctive reactions to college, frat, and rich-boy generalizations to be understandable.
So who do I believe? With nothing more to go on, I go with my gut, and it looks bad for Kavanaugh.
But there is more.
There is the taint I attach to Blasey/Ford's testimony due to the, (as I see it), slimy manipulative actions of the Dems. But I do try to account for that.
There is, to-date, no corroboration for Blasey/Ford's story. The people she placed at the party have said they don't know anything about her accusations. I can't remember if they were able to even confirm that there was such a party - but I don't think so.
Both of the accused have denied her allegations - I don't place much weight on that - of course they would, guilty or not.
Kavanaugh has a lot of circumstantially corroborating evidence. It isn't beyond dispute, but it is circumstantially credible.
So look what we are left with. An unsupportable gut judgement call vs. an iffy, but at least more than a gut-reaction judgement call.
You choose to ignore anything that conflicts with your gut-reaction judgement because you found her more believable. I choose to distrust my gut judgement, supported by only 'we all know' generalities.
And that is the fault of the Dems. Without the taint of the way they played this, I might feel differently about letting my emotion overrule my reason.
Considering what I think we know, and that prior to this situation I did think, (and still do at this point), Kavanaugh was qualified - I am sticking with reason on this one.
GA, I like your first sentence. After watching the proceedings my husband said to me, "They (Congress) shouldn't be allowed out of their homes without their mommies."
I was in college in the 80s and I recognize an entitled ass when I see one. I have almost no doubt Brett was one of those drunken, spoiled rich boys who got away with molesting girls and worse. His outrage today is because he has to answer for his behavior, not because he didn't do it. He did it and Mark Judge knows it.
Professor Ford has nothing to gain by bringing these allegations forward.
I'm sure he'll be confirmed, and I'm sure it will drive another nail in the coffin of the Grand Old Pervert party. Sorry, after standing by a self-admitted sexual predator for President and nominating yet another sexual predator to the Supreme Cpurt, the party of old white men who protect predators deserve that name.
Well said. Because he went to Yale he is guilty of attempted rape. Or is it because he is President Trump's nominee?
For sure that opinion cannot have come from anything said today!
On one hand: Professor Ford wants a full FBI investigation. She voluntarily took a lie detector test and passed. She answered every question with no evasion. She first spoke of the assault several years ago. She contacted her congressional representative before Brett was nominated.
On the other hand: Brett evaded the question about an FBI investigation. He evaded the question about being so drunk he couldn't remember what happened. He almost certainly lied about what "Renate Alumnus" means.
I know who I believe. Surely, Trump can nominate someone else.
And Ford has not had her life put on hold while a half dozen political hacks intentionally delay that life for as long as they can get away with it.
"Brett evaded the question about an FBI investigation."
Sorry; he said he would cooperate with anything the committee wanted. The only thing he didn't do was agree to delay his own confirmation simply because Democrats are playing a game with his (and Ford's) life.
"He evaded the question about being so drunk he couldn't remember what happened."
Sorry; he answered that question when the Republican prosecutor asked it.
"He almost certainly lied about what "Renate Alumnus" means."
Sorry, but did you consider what the school itself would have to say about the sex you want to assume was there? And are you assuming that Kavanaugh himself designed the yearbook and produced it without help?
So tell her to go and file a police report - if she was really serious about getting justice, then take action. Asking someone else to take action on her behalf doesn't make any sense when she's free to do it.
I don't have the right to tell her anything, especially with regard to something so personally traumatic.
"Asking someone else to take action on her behalf doesn't make any sense when she's free to do it."
She came forward with important information about the character of a man who could be appointed for life to the highest court in the land. That was for the benefit of all of us. It was of NO benefit to her personally. I thank her.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing (isn't it always) but I have to agree with the prosecutor here: Ford would have been much, much better off to have spent her resources in hiring a forensic investigator than in hiring a lawyer and allowing herself to be used by Feinstein.
Plus, the proper place to take her information was Leahy (wonder why her own senator failed to suggest that ), though I fully recognize what a bitter pill that would have been for someone from California. Or, if it would have made her feel better about her vendetta, Leahy and Feinstein.
Live and learn. Ford immediately became a small pawn in Democratic games; not a very nice place to be, and has paid a high price for it.
Ralph, I believe the statute of limitations has run out on her being able to file a police report. I believe that murder is the only crime that has no statute of limitations.
Nope - been a big thing made about that, and it was brought out in the hearing that there is no SOL on sex crimes in his state.
Fine , Now your honor , we will produce the evidence please ?..............;-}
He did! Detailed reports of whereabouts in the (proposed) time period. Dozens or hundreds of character recommendations. Witness statements from those said to be present at the "crime".
What more do you want? Evidence from the accuser that passes Feinstein's nose for political dirt and mud?
Well Don, "Zeitgeist," even though it may be a word "... leftist-liberal-social-justice-warrior-snowflakes like[s] ...," it seems an appropriate choice of words for your point. But accepting that, wouldn't that make the Democrats' comments even more pandering? Now they are not only pandering to their champion, they are pandering to a perceived mood, or cultural shift, of the country.
Regarding all of this, it seems the only choice is who do you choose to believe. For instance the FBI investigation thing ... it almost seems like every Democrat tried to get Kavanaugh to say he would like to see one.
Why is that so important now? Because it would delay the confirmation is the prime reason I can see.
A quick note: I did find Blasey/Ford to be credible. But ... I also found Kavanaugh credible.
Given the information Blasey/Ford provided to the hearing, how do you think an FBI investigation would have changed things? The only names named have already given information? It didn't corroborate Blasey/Ford's testimony.
As for the Republican pandering, I saw that too, but I don't think it was as obviously pandering to Kavanaugh as the Democrats were to Blasey/Ford. I saw the Republican pandering more as shots at the Democrats than hugging Kavanaugh.
To your point of Kavanaugh coming across as an just an "angry man," I saw it differently. Yes, he was angry, but I was receptive to that because I think his anger was justified.
My view is that the Democrats' handling of this is as slimy as it gets.
I did think the Republicans did a smart thing having the female lawyer ask the questions and kind of stay away from the land mines of asking questions themselves.
Democrats never seem to avoid tripping all over themselves to be the first ones to pander to any situation like this one. The grandstanding is repulsive and unintentionally transparent and it's why they can't get anywhere as a party. I completely agree with this point. It's really hard to support people who behave this way. Can't they just ask their questions in a simple, straight-forward manner and let the people speak for themselves without kowtowing to their base?
"My view is that the Democrats' handling of this is as slimy as it gets."
On this we agree. This is considerably worse than the Republican denial of their duties to fill a SCOTUS opening, for they have intentionally and callously destroyed a stellar reputation, if not two, and their families...all in the name of refusing their duty for a few weeks.
Well, we disagree on whether it's worse than what Republicans did to Merrick Garland. That bit of political gamesmanship set the stage for what we are seeing right now. Republicans used what was at their disposal and Democrats are using what is at theirs. Don't try to pretend like there's actually some kind of moral/ethical difference between the two.
You're automatically assuming that Ms. Ford is lying. I didn't see anything to suggest that was true.
I believe it will be revealed that she is lying.
I believe she had something happen to her, but I cannot find enough evidence in her words to pin anything on the Judge. I did hear that the two door story is being challenged by some. Apparently the building permits are four years older than the time period she stated as to when she told her husband about this event. Also since that second door was added, she's been collecting rent (meaning to some that the second door was put in for a tenant, not as her "escape" door as she mentioned)
KATHRYN L HILL WROTE:
I agree, believe it or not. I believe he did it. I believe he had a drinking problem (stemming from psychological issues caused by his high social standing and position.) I believe Ford is relaying the truth.
Ultimately, Brett is guilty of being in denial of his dark side. Then and perhaps even now. It was certainly suppressed then. He was trying to impress his parents and teachers. He acted out when drunk and did things he would never do when sober. Like Jekyll and Hyde.
For his own psychological reasons.
The fact is, he is a beer drinker. The question is, does he do things on beer that he would not do off beer?
The conclusion could be, if he doesn't, he has changed and
People can change.
Flip flopping already?
That was IF she was telling the truth.
I believed her at the time. I have come to believe that she wasn't.
It was mostly his voice and his over-defensiveness that convinced me he was guilty. But, after looking at the wikipedia info on him, I just can't believe he would do something like that and ... when you consider how vicious the deep-state is to shut down the Constitution ... well ...
Islandbites, just another demonstration of the Herculean ability of Trump supporters to not believe their lyin' eyes.
I presume then you probably believe the same about Trump - never cheated on his wife, never had sex with a porn star or Playboy model, never grabbed any woman's pu**y; etc.
I will admit I do not know the truth about whatever happened in Kavanaugh's past, but I think his clear history of drunkenness suggests there's a better nominee, with exactly the same conservative views.
What is your basis for believing Ford lied?
Here's something we know for certain - Kavanaugh lied. So how does that affect your opinion of him.
Among his interesting lies - he was asked what a "Devil's Triangle" is and he responded that it was a drinking game. Go look that up. Most people know it's not a drinking game "like quarters" and had he responded truthfully, his nomination would have been over, along with his marriage.
Not sure if it's been verified or not, but I read somewhere she oversees an internship program for CIA undergraduates. Also her father is very high up in the CIA. So her ignorance about the polygraph procedure may be feigned.
She's also supposedly a Clinton donor.
Unbelievable. I read something on a cocktail napkin once about free sex in the bathrooms. Not sure if it's been verified or not.
It is a silly and unjustified way of handling a situation. The whole confirmation is totally non-professional and disregards for any respect or intelligence.
"Silly", "unjustified", "non-professional" and "disregards for any respect or intelligence" hardly does justice to what we saw on Thursday.
You'll have to better than that. Is there a term for the slimy, bacteria-laden and contaminated mud at the bottom of the deepest mine?
by JAKE Earthshine 4 years ago
What the hell is going on in this crumbling Trump era ???? And forget the new FBI investigation into this angry weirdo’s past, why haven‘t the first steps been taken to remove this crazy conspiracy theorist from his current position as a GOD forbid judge ???? How much more evidence do you need to...
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh - and it's already a wild and crazy ride. At this early point in the hearing, reports are that 17 people have been removed for disrupting the proceedings, several Democrats forcibly interrupted...
by Mike Russo 4 years ago
What was the purpose of that hearing? In my opinion it was a dog and pony show that served no purpose and had no mission statement. It proved absolutely nothing. However it did give those who are worried about the mid-terms something to ponder. The judge is a shoe-in to be...
by Sharlee 7 months ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
The FBI just re-opened the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal - will it tip the election against her?In a letter to Congress, FBI Director James Comey revealed that the bureau has learned of more e-mails connected to the investigation being discovered. The rumors are that e-mails from the illegal...
by Kathleen Cochran 6 years ago
How much taxpayer money is going to be wasted by House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and his fellow members this time? The Benghazi boondoggle wasn't enough? And they wonder why the Republican Party is dying a slow painful death. They won't listen to...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|