Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[sheeeit 129]

This is a tough issue.  As usual, the opinions of the zealots on either side of the argument are amusing and, mostly, worthless.  This thread is a great example of why communications are so different and dangerous in todays world.  People take half stories with limited information and conflate supposition with fact and then create plausible scenarios in their own minds based on nothing and then fight like mad to defend their made up theories.  It really is fascinating to watch.

We really do not know much at all.  Anastasis comes pretty close to a similar opinion of mine.

I believe that something most likely happened to Ford.  It is possible that she made everything up to garner sympathy at some point in her life (she certainly would not be the first) but I doubt that is the case.

Based on what we know right now, though, it is hard to do much with her accusation.  I do not know what people expect the FBI to do.  She claims that she can not remember the day of the event or the location of the event.  That obviously makes it almost impossible to question other potential witnesses.  She admits that she did not ever tell anyone what happened until decades later.  Nothing wrong with that except how can anyone outside of the people she identified as being in the room possibly comment on the episode.  

The FBI has her and the now 3 people supposedly involved.  As to credibility, she may very well come across as very credible.  Obviously Kav is credible as he has been through multiple background checks and has a long history as a judge and attorney.  Not sure how credible the other 2 are but each has already released statements that they were not involved in such an event in any way.  Again, what exactly should the FBI do?  It is almost impossible to ask people about a specific event if no one knows the date or location of the event.  Coupled with the fact that Bird said she told no one, there really isnt even a place to start.

Also, I am guessing most people do not know how in depth the vetting is for federal judges.  I was interviewed by phone (taped) by the FBI for a potential federal judge that I was only peripherally acquainted with.  The questions were pretty vague but they asked about any negative story or rumor I had heard about the potential judge.  Kav has been through this multiple times.  His circle of acquaintances has been asked to identify anything negative on more than one occasion already.  I would surmise that if there was such an event as described by Bird and if anyone knew about it, then it would have come out.  The fact that it hasnt actually supports Bird's contention that she told no one.

I would agree that if another woman comes forward with a similar story that it changes everything.  Even a remotely similar event between Kav and someone else would be enough to discredit him.  I disagree with Anastasis that just knowing there was a party where he and she were present is enough.  

Also, I definitely agree that she needs to come forward and tell her story right away.  She has a doctorate, she is an intelligent woman.  When she sent a letter to Feinstein she absolutely knew where this was likely headed.  Not even the crazies could argue that a person can make extremely strong accusations against someone and expect to then be kept anonymous.  We do not and should not do that in the US.

I really fail to see where this has much impact on Kav. If she never testifies then he gets confirmed easily.  If she does testify but offers no additional supporting proof then I think he gets confirmed.  And I think he should.  If she offers any type of additional proof then he should not get confirmed.  As to telling her therapist, I do not find that compelling enough.  The decades old story just has so much room for vagueness.  To ruin a persons reputation for life, there is going to need to be more clarity.  If she can tell us where the party occurred, what was the date, who did she come with, who did she leave with, who else was there.  Did she tell her best friend, or parents or siblings.  Anything that can be used to verify or corroborate her story needs to be discovered.   

Finally, if Kav is some sort of creep it is almost impossible to believe that there were no red flags up to this point.  If he is some entitled/elitist snob then it would have come up before now.  The vetting process for a federal judge includes all sorts of political ramifications and polarizing sorts very rarely, if ever, get those nominations.  As far as I can tell, there have not been any stories from people bashing Kav on his personality or behavior.  People take issue with some of his legal decisions which is completely normal but no one has attacked his character until now.  

[scottsins 1953]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So Feinstein got word of this allegation in July everyone thinks she just sat on it?  Not a very Feinstein thing to do.  I’d speculate she spent some time conducting her own investigation to determine the veracity of the allegation before taking it to the FBI.  It would be foolish of her to make this an issue without doing her due diligence. 

I believe that the main concern was protecting the identity of the accuser.

[HenryJames 65868]

Kav.

[Guest]

Ford needs to show up and testify.  I know that is a tremendous pressure situation, but that is probably the only path that leads to any significant impact from this.  I have a close family member that recently had to testify against someone who sexually assaulted her.  It took a lot out of her, but she showed up to court the exact time and date they told her to (she actually asked for them to push her time slot back some because they gave her short notice the day of and she had to find a sitter on short notice, but they were not able to accommodate, understandably) and she testified in the presence of her attacker.  It was an incredibly stressful situation for her, but she testified and her testimony helped get him convicted (he had attacked other women as well, including teenage girls).  I was very proud of her.  

If Ford is not able to rise to the occasion, then its hard to imagine anything resulting from this.  Even with her testimony it still seems likely that Kavanaugh will get confirmed as there will be no physical evidence that can be provided at this point and it will be difficult to get any convincing corroborative testimonies since the party specifics are so vague.  I went to lots of parties in high school and if you asked me about details of some party that could have occurred any time during a given year at some place east of Houston,  I would not be able to give any useful information if my life depended on it.  And my high school years were much more recent than the early 80's.  I would be hard pressed to provide details even if you gave me the exact address and date. At best I could give some information on what happened with my immediate circle of friends.  But since there were no witnesses that would be sympathetic to Ford and she told no one, I don't know what useful testimonies anyone expects to turn up.   But even still, if Ford believes her allegations are true (which seems the most reasonable possibility to me, whether she is mistaken or it really happened the way she says), then the right thing to do is to make the sacrifice and give her story.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Guest

[Ghost of LL 15348]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So Feinstein got word of this allegation in July everyone thinks she just sat on it?  Not a very Feinstein thing to do.  I’d speculate she spent some time conducting her own investigation to determine the veracity of the allegation before taking it to the FBI.  It would be foolish of her to make this an issue without doing her due diligence. 

The fact is that she didn't sit on it.  She sent it to the White House, which sent it to Senate Republicans.  That's how Grassley was able to produce a letter from 60-something women who knew Kavanaugh in high school within 18 hours of the allegations becoming public.

The Republicans have known about this for months.  They've sat on it just as much as anyone.

[Lurch 5919]

I believe that the main concern was protecting the identity of the accuser.

100% this. The accuser’s hope was probably that he’d fuck up the confirmation hearing so she wouldn’t have to get Anita Hill’d

[MixtyMotions 102]

2 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Things will play out exactly as you say, IMO.  That fact does not mean that it is “fair”.

Also, no need for an argument to carry the day.  The GOP will be moving forward and confirming him, regardless of the accuser’s testimony (or lack there of).  There is no debate that will take place.  It’s over.

As I posted a day or two ago, Susan Collins will decide all of this.  I see no scenario where her vote doesn't decide.  And I think she sees it the same way I do.

[wildcat09 29187]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Best midfield logo in all of college football.

Yeah but they go and fuck their field up by labeling the lines every five yards.

[sheeeit 129]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The fact is that she didn't sit on it.  She sent it to the White House, which sent it to Senate Republicans.  That's how Grassley was able to produce a letter from 60-something women who knew Kavanaugh in high school within 18 hours of the allegations becoming public.

The Republicans have known about this for months.  They've sat on it just as much as anyone.

Perfect example of what I posted up thread.  No factual basis whatsoever but convincingly asserted as fact.  Well done!  Of course your theory now calls Fienstein a liar as she publicly said she did not give the letter or disclose its contents to anyone prior to 6 days ago.

[Foosters 17691]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Perfect example of what I posted up thread.  No factual basis whatsoever but convincingly asserted as fact.  Well done!  Of course your theory now calls Fienstein a liar as she publicly said she did not give the letter or disclose its contents to anyone prior to 6 days ago.

Oh shit, GOLL is going to be so upset that he called Fienstein a liar. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

26 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Bitchassedness

Brevity is the soul of wit...

[Ghost of LL 15348]

8 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Perfect example of what I posted up thread.  No factual basis whatsoever but convincingly asserted as fact.  Well done!  Of course your theory now calls Fienstein a liar as she publicly said she did not give the letter or disclose its contents to anyone prior to 6 days ago.

I'm sorry--you're right.  I misstated.

Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI, but she redacted the names involved.  The FBI sent it to the White House, which then sent it to the Republicans on the judiciary committee.

We don't know when Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI, but it was more than six days ago, as evidenced by the Intercept article that came out a week ago (presumably from leaks outside of Feinstein's office).

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Unless McConnell is ready to hand the Senate over to the democrats, I don’t think Kavanaugh gets confirmed.

Perhaps that’s a sacrifice McConnell is willing to risk?

At this point, I can’t tell how valuable Kavanaugh is to the big picture GOP. 

[sheeeit 129]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm sorry--you're right.  I misstated.

Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI, but she redacted the names involved.  The FBI sent it to the White House, which then sent it to the Republicans on the judiciary committee.

We don't know when Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI, but it was more than six days ago, as evidenced by the Intercept article that came out a week ago (presumably from leaks outside of Feinstein's office).

 

Fair response.  Pos rep.

I also do not see the issue with the support letter.  If GOLL was up for a supreme court nomination and an allegation from 35 years ago suddenly popped up, I think it would be pretty easy to get signatures of support.  Someone writes a letter and emails to friends from that time period and asks for support and asks them to forward to anyone else they have contact info for.  This is a pretty educated and, I am guessing, informed group of people.  I think it would be pretty easy to get 60 people to sign on in less than 24 hours.

[horncyclist 1384]

Unless McConnell is ready to hand the Senate over to the democrats, I don’t think Kavanaugh gets confirmed.
Perhaps that’s a sacrifice McConnell is willing to risk?
At this point, I can’t tell how valuable Kavanaugh is to the big picture GOP. 

This has been my assessment. You'll have a whole party of Roy Moores after they confirm this guy.

[Chad Fuck 17503]

You guys are pipe dreaming if you think McConnell won't stick this right up the Dems ass.  That's what's going to happen, just like Garland.

His Senate race is 4 years from now, and he thinks he can keep the Senate even with BK.  

 

[Ghost of LL 15348]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Fair response.  Pos rep.

I also do not see the issue with the support letter.  If GOLL was up for a supreme court nomination and an allegation from 35 years ago suddenly popped up, I think it would be pretty easy to get signatures of support.  Someone writes a letter and emails to friends from that time period and asks for support and asks them to forward to anyone else they have contact info for.  This is a pretty educated and, I am guessing, informed group of people.  I think it would be pretty easy to get 60 people to sign on in less than 24 hours.

The issue with the support letter is that it reflects that the Republicans have known about this for awhile.  And no--I don't think it's realistic to pull that letter together in less than 24 hours.

Even recognizing the realities of the social media world, we're talking about women here--that means that the vast majority of them have changed their names since high school.  And inasmuch as they are educated, as you point out, they are highly mobile, having moved to different parts of the country for school and careers.  That education level also means they're busy--try getting me on the phone most days.

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the letter.  Obviously, these women could be found and were persuaded to sign on.  But I think it's impossible to have put that letter together in anything less than a week.  And I think the indications are that they've know about it for a lot longer, based on some of the questioning during the hearings and the scope of some of the documents they refused to release.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Ghost of LL

[Mack Tripper 693]

40 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I would agree that if another woman comes forward with a similar story that it changes everything.  Even a remotely similar event between Kav and someone else would be enough to discredit him. 

 

So the first sexual assault is on the house, and it takes two to make the first one credible? 

[sheeeit 129]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Unless McConnell is ready to hand the Senate over to the democrats, I don’t think Kavanaugh gets confirmed.

Perhaps that’s a sacrifice McConnell is willing to risk?

At this point, I can’t tell how valuable Kavanaugh is to the big picture GOP. 

Perhaps, but I see no way this event will change any persons mind/vote on their senator/congressman.  It just stirs up the already stirred up folks.  For every person that thinks this is an example of the gop supporting a rapist there is another person that thinks this is an example of a cheap political trick that smeared a good man with no evidence.  Zero sum game.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

Perhaps, but I see no way this event will change any persons mind/vote on their senator/congressman.  It just stirs up the already stirred up folks.  For every person that thinks this is an example of the gop supporting a rapist there is another person that thinks this is an example of a cheap political trick that smeared a good man with no evidence.  Zero sum game.

Would you have expected the Anita Hill hearings not to have any effect?  Because every indication we have from the 1992 election is that it had a major effect on the makeup of the Senate.

[DDD Dad 14167]

25 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Perfect example of what I posted up thread.  No factual basis whatsoever but convincingly asserted as fact.  Well done!  Of course your theory now calls Fienstein a liar as she publicly said she did not give the letter or disclose its contents to anyone prior to 6 days ago.

[Lurch 5919]

So the first sexual assault is on the house, and it takes two to make the first one credible? 

I believe an earlier argument was that it only counts if she can remember the location.

[DDD Dad 14167]

5 minutes ago, Mack Tripper said:

So the first sexual assault is on the house, and it takes two to make the first one credible? 

It's like a dog bite.  Sheeeit.  I said that like two days ago.  This is deja vu.

[Brisketexan 104462]

1 minute ago, Mack Tripper said:

So the first sexual assault is on the house, and it takes two to make the first one credible? 

I don't think anyone sane is saying that's the only way to demonstrate that the first accusation is credible.  Rather, it's one of the ways to put it in the "hmmm, this is looking more and more credible" category.  Other things that would do that would be several sources coming forward and saying she told them about the assault around the time that it happened, or folks recounting her running crying from upstairs, and Kavanaugh coming down the stairs shortly thereafter.  None of those prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.  But they make it more and more credible.

I've used the example before: if one person reports that a person walks up behind them, reaches around, and twists their nipples, that's...interesting.  But without more, probably not sufficient to move the needle.  If a second person reports the same thing....that's pretty damned suspicious.  If a third person reports the same thing....yeah, I'm gonna conclude that you come up from behind people and pinch their nipples.

Independent similar allegations make a story more likely to be true.  That's just the way human logic works.

[Mack Tripper 693]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

It's like a dog bite.  Sheeeit.  I said that like two days ago.  This is deja vu.

Or the daily crazy pills kicking in. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

You guys are pipe dreaming if you think McConnell won't stick this right up the Dems ass.  That's what's going to happen, just like Garland.

His Senate race is 4 years from now, and he thinks he can keep the Senate even with BK.  

 

Oh, we know what McConnell wants to do and I have no doubt he will do it if he can get away with it without consequences.

Having all the GOP Senators co-sign on Kavanaugh will be a challenge if this thing keeps going downhill in the court of public opinion and I’m not just talking about Collins or Murkowski. 

There’s a John McCain moment here for someone that wants to take it and that’s some valuable political capital. 

[David Dennison 18603]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Unless McConnell is ready to hand the Senate over to the democrats, I don’t think Kavanaugh gets confirmed.

Perhaps that’s a sacrifice McConnell is willing to risk?

At this point, I can’t tell how valuable Kavanaugh is to the big picture GOP. 

No matter what happens, the damage to Republicans is done.

This whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster for them.

[sheeeit 129]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Would you have expected the Anita Hill hearings not to have any effect?  Because every indication we have from the 1992 election is that it had a major effect on the makeup of the Senate.

Not really.  I had to look it up to remember but in the 1992 senate elections the dems actually were down a seat.   And then they got smashed in 1994.  Maybe I do not understand your point?

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The issue with the support letter is that it reflects that the Republicans have known about this for awhile.  And no--I don't think it's realistic to pull that letter together in less than 24 hours.

Even recognizing the realities of the social media world, we're talking about women here--that means that the vast majority of them have changed their names since high school.  And inasmuch as they are educated, as you point out, they are highly mobile, having moved to different parts of the country for school and careers.  That education level also means they're busy--try getting me on the phone most days.

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the letter.  Obviously, these women could be found and were persuaded to sign on.  But I think it's impossible to have put that letter together in anything less than a week.  And I think the indications are that they've know about it for a lot longer, based on some of the questioning during the hearings and the scope of some of the documents they refused to release.

I have no idea when the Republicans or Kavanaugh's confirmation team found out about it, but if they had the list of names of Kavanaugh's acquaintances that were identified by the FBI in their background check, I don't think it would be that difficult to put together the letter and contact by phone, email, and social media the list of already identified folks and ask them if they agree with the contents of the letter.  Their names are just typed on the letter, not actually signed.  I think a small team could easily write this short letter and get a simple confirmation of 65 folks assuming the list of names and contact information was available to them. Also, it's possible they asked some of the women ahead of time if they could use their name as a character witness in case of any range of potential accusations. But if they had no such list of names & contacts and no previous preparation, then I agree that would be next to impossible in 24 hours.  

Edited September 19, 2018 by Guest

[Longhorn_Fan68 33824]

49 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Unless McConnell is ready to hand the Senate over to the democrats, I don’t think Kavanaugh gets confirmed.

Perhaps that’s a sacrifice McConnell is willing to risk?

At this point, I can’t tell how valuable Kavanaugh is to the big picture GOP. 

Seems to be pretty important. This still feels like a bought/sold position and that Kavanaugh either has dirt on prominent R's or is willing to let them do whatever they want as SCOTUS judge.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No matter what happens, the damage to Republicans is done.

This whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster for them.

This is some high stakes political chicken.  If Dr. Ford simply agrees to testify by Friday at 10AM, Kavanaugh won’t last the weekend.  I don’t think he shows up to that hearing.  

I’m also confident the GOP is lining up potential replacements behind the scenes.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

Yeah right, I can’t get him to take me anywhere anymore. 

This makes me sad. I hope you two can get back together to do the cotton eyed joe. 

[Bullneck 18976]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah but they go and fuck their field up by labeling the lines every five yards.

Some fan bases count better than others.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Bullneck said:

Some fan bases count better than others.

Or just very short attention spans ....

[Nivek 16807]

This kind of rationality could've saved us 5 pages of BS

Did you need someone to spell it out for you?

[Ghost of LL 15348]

21 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Not really.  I had to look it up to remember but in the 1992 senate elections the dems actually were down a seat.   And then they got smashed in 1994.  Maybe I do not understand your point?

Actually, the 1992 Senate elections ended up even, with Dems taking seats in California and Wisconsin and Reps taking seats in North Carolina and Georgia.  After a special election in Texas in 1993, in which Kay Bailey Hutchison beat Bob Krueger, the count ended up D-1.

Regardless--not my point.

Feinstein won a seat previously held by a Rep, and Boxer, Murray, and Braun all won seats previously held by male Dems.  Add to that Hutchison's (one-year delayed) win, and 1992 was popularly coined "the year of the woman."

You think that happens without Anita Hill?

[Lurch 5919]

[Gap03 3248]

13 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

Well said, McCaskill.  Dark money + the idiots that can't see through obvious bullshit = an inevitable path to idiocracy.

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Mack Tripper said:

So the first sexual assault is on the house, and it takes two to make the first one credible? 

 

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

 

I believe an earlier argument was that it only counts if she can remember the location.

 

 

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

It's like a dog bite.  Sheeeit.  I said that like two days ago.  This is deja vu.

 

1 hour ago, Mack Tripper said:

Or the daily crazy pills kicking in. 

Solid effort.  Read Briskets post.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think anyone sane is saying that's the only way to demonstrate that the first accusation is credible.  Rather, it's one of the ways to put it in the "hmmm, this is looking more and more credible" category.  Other things that would do that would be several sources coming forward and saying she told them about the assault around the time that it happened, or folks recounting her running crying from upstairs, and Kavanaugh coming down the stairs shortly thereafter.  None of those prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.  But they make it more and more credible.

I've used the example before: if one person reports that a person walks up behind them, reaches around, and twists their nipples, that's...interesting.  But without more, probably not sufficient to move the needle.  If a second person reports the same thing....that's pretty damned suspicious.  If a third person reports the same thing....yeah, I'm gonna conclude that you come up from behind people and pinch their nipples.

Independent similar allegations make a story more likely to be true.  That's just the way human logic works.

Pretty much where I am.

Also, I’d like to see both testify under oath and on tv.  Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

One of them did an awful, awful thing.   

[sheeeit 129]

28 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Actually, the 1992 Senate elections ended up even, with Dems taking seats in California and Wisconsin and Reps taking seats in North Carolina and Georgia.  After a special election in Texas in 1993, in which Kay Bailey Hutchison beat Bob Krueger, the count ended up D-1.

Regardless--not my point.

Feinstein won a seat previously held by a Rep, and Boxer, Murray, and Braun all won seats previously held by male Dems.  Add to that Hutchison's (one-year delayed) win, and 1992 was popularly coined "the year of the woman."

You think that happens without Anita Hill?

I don't know.  I thought you were talking about  a dem versus pub thing as that was what was predicted.

Boxer was a very popular sitting congresswoman when she ran for the senate and the incumbent dem didnt even run for reelection.  

Murray won election when the incumbent also chose not to run and was under investigation for sexual misconduct and rape.  I would say that had 100x more to do with Murray winning than Anita Hill.

Feinstein was a very popular Mayor of San Fran and ran against a pretty weak opponent who was only acting as senator due to Wilson leaving and was never actually elected.  

I would agree that Braun was most certainly helped by the Anita Hill stuff.  But I just do not think 1 senator getting help proves the hearings had much effect.  

A lot of it is still to be decided.  As it stands right now, I fail to see how there are people out there saying they were going to vote for a republican for senator but will now vote for the dem because of the Kav hearings.  Right now (obviously things will change if more info comes out) I think there are just as many people that support Kav and think he is being unfairly targeted (by both dems and repubs) as there are people that think he is guilty.  I actually think there are probably more people that think this.   This board is such a hyper partisan place that it makes people think certain views are more main stream than they really are.  Without more evidence, I just do not think 35 year old accusations with no proof are going to move the needle for the majority of the country.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[David Dennison 18603]

They are obviously seeing if Grassley will give in to some of her requests.

I think she testifies.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yep.  Nothing but a delay tactic.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33824]

Yep.  Nothing but a delay tactic.  

400 days

[Longhorn_Fan68 33824]

Yep.  Nothing but a delay tactic.  

400 days

[Longhorn_Fan68 33824]

Yep.  Nothing but a delay tactic.  

400 days

[Incredulity 11532]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yep.  Nothing but a delay tactic.  

400 days

So 1200 days?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33824]

Woohoo! Hat trick!