FBI digs into U.S. Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh's past

[webfact]

FBI digs into U.S. Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh's past

By Steve Holland and David Morgan

 

Protestors gather for a really against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh outside an expected speech by U.S. Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in Boston, U.S., October 1, 2018. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Days after being ordered to look into sexual misconduct allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the FBI has talked with his high school friend Mark Judge, but the interview is not complete, his attorney said on Monday.

 

University professor Christine Blasey Ford has said Judge was a witness when Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted her at a party in 1982 when they were high school students in Maryland.

 

Judge has denied Ford's allegations. Kavanaugh has also denied her accusations as well as those of two other women, while accusing Democrats of a political "hit."

 

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Friday in favour of Kavanaugh's nomination, but a full Senate vote on confirmation was delayed for a week after President Donald Trump bowed to pressure from moderate members of his Republican Party for the FBI probe.

 

On Monday, the president, who nominated Kavanaugh to the top U.S. court, said the FBI would have free rein to interview any witnesses it deemed necessary. He added he did not want the probe to become a "witch hunt" and that it should be completed quickly.

 

"I want them to do a very comprehensive investigation. Whatever that means, according to the senators and the Republicans and the Republican majority, I want them to do that," Trump said at a White House news conference.

 

His remarks followed criticism by Democrats that he and other Republicans were trying to limit the scope of the FBI probe.

 

Democratic Senator Chris Coons told reporters he was in discussions with the White House on the probe. He said: "The FBI needs to be allowed to pursue all reasonable investigatory steps from the credible allegations in front of the committee."

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the chamber would vote this week on Kavanaugh, a conservative federal appeals court judge in Washington. A spokesman for McConnell declined to clarify whether McConnell was referring to procedural votes or a final vote on confirming Kavanaugh.

 

The Kavanaugh nomination erupted last month into a major controversy that jeopardized an effort by Trump and his fellow Republicans to cement conservative dominance of the nation's highest court and push America's judiciary to the right.

 

Coming just before Nov. 6 elections when control of Congress is at stake, the nomination has become a politically explosive issue, with some Republicans fearing that pushing ahead with confirmation would alienate women voters, while Democrats seek to capitalize.

 

'WE REQUEST YOUR PATIENCE'

Judge's attorney, Barbara "Biz" Van Gelder, said in a statement: "Mr. Judge has been interviewed by the FBI but his interview has not been completed. We request your patience as the FBI completes its investigation."

 

Ford said during her testimony at a dramatic Senate hearing last Thursday that Judge was in the bedroom where the alleged assault by Kavanaugh occurred. She said Judge and Kavanaugh were both drunk at the time.

 

Judge has written several books, including one titled "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk," and one titled "God and Man at Georgetown Prep: How I Became a Catholic Despite 20 Years of Catholic Schooling." He and Kavanaugh were classmates at Georgetown Preparatory School, an elite private school outside Washington.

 

P.J. Smyth, identified by Ford as being at the gathering of teenagers where the alleged assault occurred, was interviewed by the FBI and again denied knowledge of the gathering or of improper conduct by his friend Kavanaugh, Smyth's lawyers said.

 

RAMIREZ, SWETNICK

Kavanaugh's second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has also been interviewed by the FBI, said Coons, who played a key role along with Republican Jeff Flake last week in winning the one-week Senate pause, said it was not clear whether the FBI would investigate the allegations by a third woman, Julie Swetnick.

 

Nine of 10 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee wrote on Monday to FBI Director Christopher Wray and White House Counsel Don McGahn, listing 24 people they said should be interviewed by the FBI, and urging that the investigation assess all three allegations of sexual misconduct.

 

Supreme Court nominations require Senate confirmation. Trump's Republicans control the Senate by a 51-49 margin. That means if all the Democrats vote against Kavanaugh, Trump could not afford to have more than one Republican oppose his nominee, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tiebreaking vote.

 

Trump said he believed Kavanaugh did not lie during his Judiciary Committee testimony about the extent of his drinking in high school and college. On the other hand, Trump said, if the FBI uncovers something, "I'll take that into consideration. I have a very open mind." Trump did not elaborate.

 

In a statement in the New York Times on Sunday, Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, said the judge was not truthful about his drinking during his Senate testimony last week and that at Yale he was "a frequent drinker and a heavy drinker" who often got belligerent and aggressive when drunk.

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland and David Morgan; Additional reporting by Lisa Lambert, Richard Cowan and Sarah N. Lynch; Writing by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Will Dunham and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-10-02

[Thailand]

Toast?

[Lacessit]

IMHO it's virtually impossible for anyone to be as pure as the driven snow. Most people have skeletons in their cupboards.

Having said that, the position Kavanaugh is aspiring to does demand a higher standard of probity.

[zaphod reborn]

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMHO it's virtually impossible for anyone to be as pure as the driven snow. Most people have skeletons in their cupboards.

Having said that, the position Kavanaugh is aspiring to does demand a higher standard of probity.

 

His high school and college days would be irrelevant if he didn't testify that he can't recall the party at which Dr. Ford claims she was attacked by him, and wasn't a black-out drunk.  In a court of law, the testimony would be admitted under the rules of evidence.

1)  evidence of heavy drinking is probative of whether he doesn't recall the party, because he has a history of black-out drinking which impairs his memory; and,

2) evidence of being aggressive, belligerant and imposing himself on women while being drunk is probative of whether he had a tendency to act in the same manner as Dr. Ford testified about the party where she was attacked.

 

Senate confirmation hearings have no evidentiary standards other than relevance.  Therefore, the investigation is proper to vet both his history of imposing himself on women without consent, his honesty and his temperament for serving as a Supreme Court Justice. 

[heybruce]

Brett Kavanaugh isn't on trial, he is on a job interview.  The standards for rejecting a job applicant are not as high as the standards for conviction in court.  Reasonable doubts about the character and integrity of the job applicant are grounds for rejecting the applicant.

 

In view of the accusations of sexual assault, Brett Kavanaugh's poorly explained $150,000 in credit card debt  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-brett-kavanaughs-personal-finances-credit-card-debts-and-a-92000-country-club-fee/2018/08/09/2820fee6-8e9f-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b1fb86149c35 , his involvement in stolen documents https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/ , and suspicions that he lied under oath about these things, there are ample reasons to doubt the character and integrity of Brett Kavanugh.

[smotherb]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IMHO it's virtually impossible for anyone to be as pure as the driven snow. Most people have skeletons in their cupboards.

Having said that, the position Kavanaugh is aspiring to does demand a higher standard of probity.

Exactly. A Supreme Court justice's, mindset will no doubt influence the US's highest-level judicial decisions for the next 30+ years.

Kavanaugh's testimony shows he is exceedingly political--listen to his opening statement, except for blaming Obama, he followed Trump's rants to the tee. We are supposed to have at least nine Americans for our Supreme Court who consider all Americans and are politically non-partisan. 

 

Kavanaugh is the consummate Washington, D.C. insider, even grew up there and his mother is a judge and his father a lawyer, both DC insiders. Kavanaugh practiced law in DC and has been a DC Court of Appeals judge since 2006 and was appointed by George W Bush. Drain the swamp, indeed.

 

Kavanaugh cried like a baby and got openly hostile and even refused to answer questions put to him by the Senators.

 

He even spouted back in anger at Sen. Klobachar for asking him if he ever blacked-out form drinking, "Have you? . . . I want to know, have you?"

 

When Sen Whitehouse asked if he drank too much, Kavanaugh, apparently irritated by the continued questions asked, "Do you like beer Senator, do you like beer?"  Please tell me what judge in any courtroom would put-up with that sort of retort from a witness?

 

When Sen Leahy questioned him, Kavanaugh repeatedly responded in irritated tones and implied an FBI investigation had been done--when in fact Sen Flake had not yet demanded one--and that this hearing is a "disgrace and a circus," yet it is a time-honored right-of-passage to confirmation for all Supreme Court justices.

 

When Sen Durbin asked Kavanaugh if he thought an investigation should be made? He could not or would not answer directly, just sat there with a dumb founded look.

 

His constant refrain when somewhat stumped for a response was to recount his academic accolades and the good grades he earned. 

 

Ford was much more civil, never touted her own successes, and answered every question asked her.

 

Sorry, but I want a less politically biased, less childish, less easily irritated and more honorable person--even a better drinker, for Christ's sake--on the Supreme Court of my land.

 

[manarak]

13 minutes ago, smotherb said:

He even spouted back in anger at Sen. Klobachar for asking him if he ever blacked-out form drinking, "Have you? . . . I want to know, have you?"

 

When Sen Whitehouse asked if he drank too much, Kavanaugh, apparently irritated by the continued questions asked, "Do you like beer Senator, do you like beer?"  Please tell me what judge in any courtroom would put-up with that sort of retort from a witness?

...

 

Sorry, but I want a less politically biased, less childish, less easily irritated and more honorable person--even a better drinker, for Christ's sake--on the Supreme Court of my land.

 

 

The questions about drinking that occured almost 40 years ago are childish, and the question "do you like beer" is ridiculous too.

 

Regarding passing out "ONCE" ... I consider it pretty normal for anyone to get drunk many times and to pass out at least once during their time as a student.

To some extent I also believe that persons who stayed away from alcohol and fun involving more or less sex are not fully qualified to judge over other people's lives.

Personally, I wouldn't like puritans in a supreme court.

 

Then there is the problem of how far back the alleged facts are. Not only from a statute of limitations perspective and because people can massively wisen up in nearly 40 years, but also from the aspect of acceptable social standards. When I was a student in Europe during the 90ies (sort of European Ivy League), it was pretty commonplace for some wild and lewd things to happen at parties and nobody made a fuss about it.

Americans seem to be so afraid of nudity and sex, I wonder if society isn't going backwards on that subject, not just in the US but everywhere.

 

[Ron19]

An off topic post and replies to it have been removed.

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

the position Kavanaugh is aspiring to does demand a higher standard of probity.

Yes, such as lying under oath.

Not a good idea for lifetime USSC judge.

[smotherb]

7 minutes ago, manarak said:

 

The questions about drinking that occured almost 40 years ago are childish, and the question "do you like beer" is ridiculous too.

 

Regarding passing out "ONCE" ... I consider it pretty normal for anyone to get drunk many times and to pass out at least once during their time as a student.

To some extent I also believe that persons who stayed away from alcohol and fun involving more or less sex are not fully qualified to judge over other people's lives.

Personally, I wouldn't like puritans in a supreme court.

 

Then there is the problem of how far back the alleged facts are. Not only from a statute of limitations perspective and because people can massively wisen up in nearly 40 years, but also from the aspect of acceptable social standards. When I was a student in Europe during the 90ies (sort of European Ivy League), it was pretty commonplace for some wild and lewd things to happen at parties and nobody made a fuss about it.

Americans seem to be so afraid of nudity and sex, I wonder if society isn't going backwards on that subject, not just in the US but everywhere.

 

Well, I am so glad you have appointed yourself the judge of what American Senators should ask. Is there any other omniscient aspect of your being, other than you have no idea about what you are talking?

 

These questions relate to his actions at the time of the alleged incident; therefore, they are totally relevant.

 

No one I know is asking for a puritan; just a political non-partisan and a non-criminal. We have already seen his political bias with his comments under oath; and his actions toward Ford, if true, make him a criminal.

 

Let me clarify some of your obvious confusion. Passing-out is not what is being implied, it is blacking-out--not remembering what happened after considerable drinking.

 

Again, your ignorance leaps forth. This is not a trial; therefore, statue of limitations or proof beyond a reasonable doubt do not apply. This is a hearing at best, a job interview in practical terms. So, the collective opinion of the interviewers, the Senators, is the deciding factor.

 

Given no proof either way, which is he likely outcome of the investigation; the Senators are not held to be politically non-partisan and will no doubt vote along party lines.

 

Since Kavanaugh is the Republican choice and the majority of the Senate are Republicans; unless some convincing evidence changes their minds, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

 

Hence, the need for an investigation, rather than just he said/she said.

 

I was a student in DC in the 60's and my wife a student there in the 80's; the DC party scene for high school and college students was well known to us both--drinking and sex were commonplace, but we all did not commit sexual assault.

 

DC's drinking age was 18 and young people were rarely carded; unless they looked exceedingly young. I started buying in liquor stores and drinking in DC clubs at 14, but I was a big kid and many of my friends were 18.

 

Your inability to understand just leaps forward again and again. This is not about sex and nudity; this is about sexual assault and it is relevant, even if it happened 40 years ago.

[Tracyb]

8 hours ago, Thailand said:

Toast?

Toast-ed! And certainly hope he’s toast.....  if not we may see a violent insurrection.

 

[Boon Mee]

As if the previous 7 FBI investigations weren't enough? 

[seajae]

so far the only person that has any sort of back up is Kavanaugh, his accuser has been shot down by the 3 other witnesses  so her story could well be just that a story.  I know if I was falsely accused I would be doing exactly the same thing he is, the chances this is purely a democrat set up is extremely high as they have done it before. Everyone is following their political bias, dems are saying one thing and republicans another, going by all the real evidence so far he appears to be not guilty as he is backed up by the only witnesses she has mentioned, one of them supposedly a good friend, think there is a lot more to this than what is being said and hopefully iy will come out now the fbi are checking out the so called claims. 

[smotherb]

33 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

As if the previous 7 FBI investigations weren't enough? 

Then what is the gripe? If nothing is there, nothing will be discovered.

[smotherb]

24 minutes ago, seajae said:

so far the only person that has any sort of back up is Kavanaugh, his accuser has been shot down by the 3 other witnesses  so her story could well be just that a story.  I know if I was falsely accused I would be doing exactly the same thing he is, the chances this is purely a democrat set up is extremely high as they have done it before. Everyone is following their political bias, dems are saying one thing and republicans another, going by all the real evidence so far he appears to be not guilty as he is backed up by the only witnesses she has mentioned, one of them supposedly a good friend, think there is a lot more to this than what is being said and hopefully iy will come out now the fbi are checking out the so called claims. 

What? What three witnesses supported Kavanaugh's defense? You mean the three who said they did not remember/know? So, just how does that negate Ford's charge and clear Kavanaugh? And,how was Ford shot down? Ford did not say they would remember/know? Stand back lad, and screw your head-on properly. Not remembering/knowing is not conclusive evidence to any rational person. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by smotherb

[Tug]

Swilling beer in school is normal forced groping of your classmates is not when thease allegations first came to light they should have been investigated immediately espically with Donald’s reputation as a assaulter it could have saved a lot of anger but sadly with Donald’s policy of devide and conquer he let it slide

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

As if the previous 7 FBI investigations weren't enough? 

What was the scope and recommendations of each of those investigations?

• The FBI conducts background checks for federal nominees but the agency does not make judgments on the credibility or significance of allegations. Instead, the department compiles information about the nominee’s past and provides its findings to the agency that requested the background check.
• Typically, it does not go back decades, as it would need to do if it examined Kavanaugh’s actions in his teenage years
• FBI background checks aren’t meant to dig up decades-old claims that never resulted in a police report or criminal charges. - Greg Rinckey, a lawyer specializing in employment law and the security clearance process.

https://apnews.com/db1eeb05eb4b4842a13a2f750986a588

So the question becomes, how relevant were past FBI background checks on Kavanaugh to the current charges being made? I'd say no relevance.

[seajae]

32 minutes ago, smotherb said:

What? What three witnesses supported Kavanaugh's defense? You mean the three who said they did not remember/know? So, just how does that negate Ford's charge and clear Kavanaugh? And,how was Ford shot down? Ford did not say they would remember/know? Stand back lad, and screw your head-on properly. Not remembering/knowing is not conclusive evidence to any rational person. 

three said they never attended the party in question, one (her female friend) said she didnt know kavanaugh, the accuser cant give a date or address or even how she got there and home, think your the one that needs to screw their head on properly and use some common sense instead of your political bias, until the fbi say different her story is the weak link even without what her year books say from what I have read. Also 2 others are claiming to be the ones that did it, may be false but just as believable as any of the accusations the dems have provided so far till proven otherwise, I couldnt give a sh*t which way it goes but I am not prepared to say which side is making it up at this stage, just going on the only so called people that were supposed to be there but are denying it under oath, certainly makes one side look a bit more credible so far to someone with no political leaning in the US, seems the dems are the ones with their heads firmly planted so far, lets see what happens with the fbi investigation, both sides may be in trouble yet

 

[Sheryl]

5 hours ago, smotherb said:

Exactly. A Supreme Court justice's, mindset will no doubt influence the US's highest-level judicial decisions for the next 30+ years.

Kavanaugh's testimony shows he is exceedingly political--listen to his opening statement, except for blaming Obama, he followed Trump's rants to the tee. We are supposed to have at least nine Americans for our Supreme Court who consider all Americans and are politically non-partisan. 

 

Kavanaugh is the consummate Washington, D.C. insider, even grew up there and his mother is a judge and his father a lawyer, both DC insiders. Kavanaugh practiced law in DC and has been a DC Court of Appeals judge since 2006 and was appointed by George W Bush. Drain the swamp, indeed.

 

Kavanaugh cried like a baby and got openly hostile and even refused to answer questions put to him by the Senators.

 

He even spouted back in anger at Sen. Klobachar for asking him if he ever blacked-out form drinking, "Have you? . . . I want to know, have you?"

 

When Sen Whitehouse asked if he drank too much, Kavanaugh, apparently irritated by the continued questions asked, "Do you like beer Senator, do you like beer?"  Please tell me what judge in any courtroom would put-up with that sort of retort from a witness?

 

When Sen Leahy questioned him, Kavanaugh repeatedly responded in irritated tones and implied an FBI investigation had been done--when in fact Sen Flake had not yet demanded one--and that this hearing is a "disgrace and a circus," yet it is a time-honored right-of-passage to confirmation for all Supreme Court justices.

 

When Sen Durbin asked Kavanaugh if he thought an investigation should be made? He could not or would not answer directly, just sat there with a dumb founded look.

 

His constant refrain when somewhat stumped for a response was to recount his academic accolades and the good grades he earned. 

 

Ford was much more civil, never touted her own successes, and answered every question asked her.

 

Sorry, but I want a less politically biased, less childish, less easily irritated and more honorable person--even a better drinker, for Christ's sake--on the Supreme Court of my land.

 

Very well put.

 

The testimony IMO was surprising and thoroughly established that he is unfit. And by that I mean HIS testimony, not hers. Nothing wrong with her testimony, but no surprises either, she said what we already know she says happened, and had it not been for his testimony we might not be much further along. It would still be "he said/she said". 

 

He on the other hand put on an astounding performance of belligerence and disrespect for the Senators questioning him, accompanied by a highly policitized tirade. These alone should disqualify him. Then on top of this, almost certain perjury with respect to his drinking during HS and college. Perjury pretty easy to prove. There's only one eye witness to the alleged attack (and that, a close friend of his who was very drunk at the time) but there are scores of witnesses to his drinking behavior.

 

If he had instead said something to the effect of "I did get drunk in my teens and in college, and sometimes blacked out, as many kids that age do.  That was more than 30 years ago and is not indicative of my conduct as an adult. I do not do such things now and have not done so since being appointed to the bar 30 some odd years ago.  As a teenager, I knew Dr. Ford and attended parties she may also have attended but I have no memory of the incident she describes. If as a teenager while extremely drunk I did anything  that frightened her or made her feel attacked I am deeply sorry for it. That's not the adult I became" and then coupled that with a calm, dignified and respectful demeaner, he'd be home free.  Instead he revealed himself to be unable to control his temper, belligerent, disrespectful, and suffering from a sense of entitlement, along with a deep political bias. He also revealed himself as very ready to lie under oath, even on somewhat tangential matters.

 

I hope prosecution for perjury follows. The Statute of Limitations long ran out for sexual assault, and it would in any event be very, very hard to prove. But it is well in effect for perjury committed just last week and that will be much easier to establish.   If convicted of perjury he should IMO be  disbarred.

 

 

 

 

[smotherb]

2 minutes ago, seajae said:

three said they never attended the party in question, one (her female friend) said she didnt know kavanaugh, the accuser cant give a date or address or even how she got there and home, think your the one that needs to screw their head on properly and use some common sense instead of your political bias, until the fbi say different her story is the weak link even without what her year books say from what I have read. Also 2 others are claiming to be the ones that did it, may be false but just as believable as any of the accusations the dems have provided so far till proven otherwise, I couldnt give a sh*t which way it goes but I am not prepared to say which side is making it up at this stage, just going on the only so called people that were supposed to be there but are denying it under oath, certainly makes one side look a bit more credible so far to someone with no political leaning in the US, seems the dems are the ones with their heads firmly planted so far, lets see what happens with the fbi investigation, both sides may be in trouble yet

 

Ford never testified her friend knew Kavanaugh, just that she was there. The fact that she cannot remember incidentals but can vividly remember the assault conforms to known studies on trauma--try some research.  You may see her story as weak, but she was not the one crying and getting angry and not answering questions. Yeah, two others are claiming they did it. And, two others are claiming Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them too. As I said, I think the investigation will not likely prove or disprove either of their stories, and unless some information uncovered changes the mindset of some Senators, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.  

 

 

[Slip]

Awkward...

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

[utalkin2me]

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

Ford never testified her friend knew Kavanaugh, just that she was there. The fact that she cannot remember incidentals but can vividly remember the assault conforms to known studies on trauma--try some research.  You may see her story as weak, but she was not the one crying and getting angry and not answering questions. Yeah, two others are claiming they did it. And, two others are claiming Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them too. As I said, I think the investigation will not likely prove or disprove either of their stories, and unless some information uncovered changes the mindset of some Senators, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.  

 

 

People make too big a deal about the witnesses in my opinion. The only one who was actually in the room will never say they are both guilty. We all know this. For the other two it was just a random, small get together. There is also the "you watch too many movies" angle, Kav obviously has more political clout and power to get to someone to persuade their statement. Maybe unlikely, but whatever. Also, what if these witnesses just do not want to be dragged into the middle of a huge scandal?! They have got families I take it. I never hear that brought up as a reason the other two could have "forgotten". In the end, I agree though, that nobody remembers the get together does not look good for her. 

 

My opinion is that if everyone had a gun to their head and had to guess who was twlling the truth, and pain of death was the punishment for being wrong, I am betting about 75% of the people who watched the hearing side with Ford. 

 

Edit: I quoted the wrong person and could not figire how to fix it ????

Edited October 2, 2018 by utalkin2me

[quandow]

8 hours ago, smotherb said:

This is not about sex and nudity; this is about sexual assault and it is relevant, even if it happened 40 years ago.

It goes beyond that, it's about character, honesty and integrity. If Kavanaugh had just 'fessed up and admitted he was a party monster as many of his classmates have reported, this wouldn't be such an issue. Bottom line, he lied to Senators. NOT what you want in a Supreme Court Justice.

[The manic]

14 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

 

His high school and college days would be irrelevant if he didn't testify that he can't recall the party at which Dr. Ford claims she was attacked by him, and wasn't a black-out drunk.  In a court of law, the testimony would be admitted under the rules of evidence.

1)  evidence of heavy drinking is probative of whether he doesn't recall the party, because he has a history of black-out drinking which impairs his memory; and,

2) evidence of being aggressive, belligerant and imposing himself on women while being drunk is probative of whether he had a tendency to act in the same manner as Dr. Ford testified about the party where she was attacked.

 

Senate confirmation hearings have no evidentiary standards other than relevance.  Therefore, the investigation is proper to vet both his history of imposing himself on women without consent, his honesty and his temperament for serving as a Supreme Court Justice. 

Kennedy, Clinton  Bush and more would have failed these tests.

[beechguy]

5 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Very well put.

 

The testimony IMO was surprising and thoroughly established that he is unfit. And by that I mean HIS testimony, not hers. Nothing wrong with her testimony, but no surprises either, she said what we already know she says happened, and had it not been for his testimony we might not be much further along. It would still be "he said/she said". 

 

He on the other hand put on an astounding performance of belligerence and disrespect for the Senators questioning him, accompanied by a highly policitized tirade. These alone should disqualify him. Then on top of this, almost certain perjury with respect to his drinking during HS and college. Perjury pretty easy to prove. There's only one eye witness to the alleged attack (and that, a close friend of his who was very drunk at the time) but there are scores of witnesses to his drinking behavior.

 

If he had instead said something to the effect of "I did get drunk in my teens and in college, and sometimes blacked out, as many kids that age do.  That was more than 30 years ago and is not indicative of my conduct as an adult. I do not do such things now and have not done so since being appointed to the bar 30 some odd years ago.  As a teenager, I knew Dr. Ford and attended parties she may also have attended but I have no memory of the incident she describes. If as a teenager while extremely drunk I did anything  that frightened her or made her feel attacked I am deeply sorry for it. That's not the adult I became" and then coupled that with a calm, dignified and respectful demeaner, he'd be home free.  Instead he revealed himself to be unable to control his temper, belligerent, disrespectful, and suffering from a sense of entitlement, along with a deep political bias. He also revealed himself as very ready to lie under oath, even on somewhat tangential matters.

 

I hope prosecution for perjury follows. The Statute of Limitations long ran out for sexual assault, and it would in any event be very, very hard to prove. But it is well in effect for perjury committed just last week and that will be much easier to establish.   If convicted of perjury he should IMO be  disbarred.

 

 

 

 

Very well, let's apply those same standards to Feinstein, Booker, Kamala Harris, and of course Hillary if she decides to run again. No need for double standards are there.

[Credo]

4 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Very well, let's apply those same standards to Feinstein, Booker, Kamala Harris, and of course Hillary if she decides to run again. No need for double standards are there.

Sure.   What exactly have they done that needs investigating?   No need to respond to the Clinton's though, they've been investigated endlessly for years and years.   

 

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Very well, let's apply those same standards to Feinstein, Booker, Kamala Harris, and of course Hillary if she decides to run again. No need for double standards are there.

Are any of these people trying to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?

[quandow]

53 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Very well, let's apply those same standards to Feinstein, Booker, Kamala Harris, and of course Hillary if she decides to run again. No need for double standards are there.

Until we stop deflecting with the "they did it, so why can't I?" defense, we can't forge straight ahead towards the truth.

[beechguy]

45 minutes ago, Credo said:

 Sure.   What exactly have they done that needs investigating?   No need to respond to the Clinton's though, they've been investigated endlessly for years and years.   

 

For Feinstein, let's look into withholding information on Mrs. Ford's letter, then an apparent leak. If no one else had access, who leaked it. Never mind her issues with the hired help. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/explain-the-chinese-spy-sen-feinstein/2018/08/09/0560ca60-9bfd-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff38e1ef154f

 

For Booker, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/21/in-1992-cory-booker-admitted-to-groping-a-high-school-classmate-and-issued-a-call-for-sexual-respect/?utm_term=.5369987b37de,     Is that all there was to it? Never mind some financial transactions that raised questions.

 

For Harris, her issues started before she became a Senator, but no shortage of trying to misrepresent the facts during hearings, plenty of video of that. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen-kamala-harris-likely-to-face-lawsuit-over-california-attorney-general-conduct

 

Better read these quickly, I have a history of being deleted.

[beechguy]

37 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are any of these people trying to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?

No, but they are trying to control who does, I don't consider them credible.