Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing

[yossarian22c]

How did she get to the party? If she was 15 did she drive herself? Walk? Bicycle? Even if you knew nothing else you would definitely remember how you got there so not having that information is very damaging to her credibility. I suppose she could have had a license and drove herself or it could have been within walking or bicycling distance but that hasn't been mentioned and if that's not the case there would be another witness that might have more information. That there is no mention of any of this is very suspect. Or is there something I'm missing?

The only thing you are missing is that those questions have never been asked of Ford. So it isn't unusual that all of those details aren't in the media reports.

Presumably these are things an FBI investigation could reveal, were the President or senate committee to request the FBI continue their background investigation on Kavanaugh. If her story has lots of holes an FBI report would bear that out, on the other hand the FBI could find some other corroborating evidence if they looked into the matter. Refusing to do anything other than listen to Ford make the allegation and Kavanaugh deny the allegation is just a show.

[TheDrake]

Do you seriously think that would happen?

That's like saying we should stop worrying about Trump because if he does something wrong he'll just be impeached.

If there was proof that he attempted to rape somebody? Yeah, I do think that would rise to the level of impeachment. If there were unproven accusations like the ones that dogged Clinton? Probably not.

[TheDrake]

Basically if Kavanaugh’s friend doesn’t corroborate her story there certainly is no proof. However if it comes out that they routinely went to parties and got drunk, potentially to the point of blacking or passing out then the accusation could be true and both men could be perfectly honest in saying they have no recollection of it. Failing to interview the friend under oath or having a sworn statement taken from him is a willfully negligent investigation.

I wonder how that interview would go?

"Were you at a house party during the summer of 1982?" Yes
"Where were all of the house parties you went to in the summer of 1982?" I don't recall
"Have you ever been at a party with Christine Ford?" I don't recall

In order to interrogate someone, you have to confront them with some kind of actual facts. There's literally nothing to go on here. Sure, you could have him make the statements that he has made publicly under oath. I don't see what that gets you.

[Wayward Son]

So, What I'm hearing is that any accusation of wrongdoing now disqualifies anyone from public office?  Are we going to hold everybody to that standard?

Only from the Right.

What you should be hearing is that accusations of wrongdoing will be investigated by the FBI before someone is appointed for life to the Supreme Court.

But, of course, you aren't hearing that from Republicans, either.

[TheDrake]

Perhaps Kavanaugh should get a special prosecutor so they can hold up his vote until 2020.

[Seriati]

You made me laugh on that one TheDrake.

Wayward, maybe after Ford commits on the record to an accusation there will be something the FBI can actually investigate.  What exactly is the hesitation in requiring that she testify to her claim - which has no other evidence - before it be allowed to derail an SC nomination.  Honestly, failing to meet even a minimum baseline evidentiary standard ought to be inherently discrediting.

[Wayward Son]

So you think she should file charges against Kavanaugh, since (so I've heard) Maryland does not have a statue of limitations on attempted rape, to increase her credibility?

That should make things interesting.

[Seriati]

Sure, if she thinks that this was an attempted rape she should file the charges.  Based on what she described, I understand the events more closely fit a misdemeanor charge with a one year statute of limitations, than an attempted rape charge.  Can't see anyway to credibly prove he was trying to rape her on the record (even assuming she's not lying or mistaken). 

I also think its very likely Kavanaugh could bring and win a defamation case against her on these facts.  I suspect he's been counseled not to do so immediately because that would give her a basis to clam up and refuse to testify.  Be interesting to see if he lets it go after the confirmation vote.

[yossarian22c]

You made me laugh on that one TheDrake.

Wayward, maybe after Ford commits on the record to an accusation there will be something the FBI can actually investigate.  What exactly is the hesitation in requiring that she testify to her claim - which has no other evidence - before it be allowed to derail an SC nomination.  Honestly, failing to meet even a minimum baseline evidentiary standard ought to be inherently discrediting.

She is asking to make her statement to the FBI and have them better inform the committee before the hearings. Without looking for any exculpatory or supporting evidence republicans are going to hold the hearing claim it is a he said she said not investigate further and then vote to confirm him. I would bet they don’t call for a further investigation no matter how credible Ford comes across.

[Wayward Son]

I would bet they don’t call for a further investigation no matter how credible Ford comes across.

Come now, yossarian, that's a sucker's bet.  It took the FBI three days to investigate Thomas' accusations of sexual harassment.  If the Senate had asked the FBI to investigate Ford's accusations, they would almost doubtlessly be done by now, and almost certainly by Monday.  They just want this thing to go away regardless of the merits and pretend it never happened.

[cherrypoptart]

What should her punishment be if it at the end of the process it can be conclusively proven that she made the whole thing up and none of it was true at all? There's the case of Brian Banks who served 5 years in prison on a false rape charge. It was proven beyond any doubt that the female made it all up and yet she never served a day in prison, was never even put on probation, and didn't even have to pick up trash on community service. It seems like false charges often aren't taken very seriously.

[TheDrake]

Perjury has a statute of limitations. But you already knew that. There also isn't nearly enough information to prove this vague story didn't happen, any more than proving that it did.

[Seriati]

No the sucker's bet is believing this is the last of the dirty trick.  If the Committee moves forward, Ford will suddenly remember new details, like that she told a friend, who will also come forward (with social media accounts that have been scrubbed for months) to corroborate the tale.

Explain where the idea came from that someone who hasn't filed a police report where the crime occurred should be entitled to have the federal criminal investigation resources applied to a state law matter?  There is a lot of handwaiving over substantive justice problems here.

Or would you be comfortable if anyone could turn you into the FBI for a deep dive analysis based on uncorroborated statements of conduct from 35 years ago? 

[cherrypoptart]

Perjury has a statute of limitations but felony sexual assault doesn't in Maryland. I would think her statue of limitations for perjury would be starting nowadays though. I just think it's interesting to see the differences in prison time handed out for sexual assault compared to the perjury charge that could put an innocent man in prison for sexual assault. They are usually pretty lopsided.

[TheDrake]

I was referring to the case you brought up of Brian Banks. That's why she "never served a day in prison" etc. Of course Brian took a plea deal as well. I'll see your anecdote and raise you one.

BRIDGEPORT, Connecticut -- A Long Island woman who falsely accused two Sacred Heart University football players of rape was sentenced in a Connecticut court Thursday.

Nikki Yovino, of South Setauket, pleaded guilty to making up the allegations and was sentenced to three years in prison. She will only serve one year, though, with the other two suspended as part of the plea agreement.

[Seriati]

Perjury has a statute of limitations but felony sexual assault doesn't in Maryland.

Actually, attempted rape doesn't have a statute of limitations (but it'd be virtually impossible to prove intent even if we accepted what she's said as 100% true).  A Fourth degree sexual offense, which is what groping appears to actually be in MD has a one year statute of limitations.  People are going to try and claim this should be miss-charged solely for avoiding the statute of limitations.

I would think her statue of limitations for perjury would be starting nowadays though.

I don't think she's provided a sworn statement.  Without that she hasn't committed perjury even if she's lying her ass off.  It would be defamation or slander at this point - if she's not telling the truth.

[yossarian22c]

Perjury has a statute of limitations but felony sexual assault doesn't in Maryland.

Actually, attempted rape doesn't have a statute of limitations (but it'd be virtually impossible to prove intent even if we accepted what she's said as 100% true).  A Fourth degree sexual offense, which is what groping appears to actually be in MD has a one year statute of limitations.  People are going to try and claim this should be miss-charged solely for avoiding the statute of limitations.

I find it hard to believe there could be enough evidence that could be presented that would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. IMO The level of proof needed to simply deny someone a lifetime appointment to the supreme court is much lower than the level of proof needed to put someone in prison.

[Fenring]

I find it hard to believe there could be enough evidence that could be presented that would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. IMO The level of proof needed to simply deny someone a lifetime appointment to the supreme court is much lower than the level of proof needed to put someone in prison.

Although this isn't how law currently works, I sometimes wonder whether the law should protect the potentially innocent by requiring that all criminal accusations such as this be withheld from the public until such a time as the police, or lawyers, or a prosecutor decided there's enough evidence for a case to be made. At that point the facts could be disclosed to the public. But I really worry about this business of accusations taking on a life of their own. Is it really possible to 'forget' that the cloud of the accusation hangs over someone's head, even if ultimately there isn't enough evidence for a case to be put to trial?

This is sort of in the same department but different door to the issue of propaganda or 'fake news', where just by hearing the spurious story many peoples' minds will already be set and no new information will significantly undo the effect that the initial story had. In the case of random news stories I don't know what the remedy is; but for criminal accusations I feel like more protections are needed if the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" is to remain a real public value.

[Wayward Son]

No the sucker's bet is believing this is the last of the dirty trick.  If the Committee moves forward, Ford will suddenly remember new details, like that she told a friend, who will also come forward (with social media accounts that have been scrubbed for months) to corroborate the tale.

Which is why an investigation now would be useful.  If the friend was interviewed by the FBI now, how could he/she suddenly remember it later?

Explain where the idea came from that someone who hasn't filed a police report where the crime occurred should be entitled to have the federal criminal investigation resources applied to a state law matter?  There is a lot of handwaiving over substantive justice problems here.

Or would you be comfortable if anyone could turn you into the FBI for a deep dive analysis based on uncorroborated statements of conduct from 35 years ago?

You have this backwards, Seriati.  The FBI investigation woudn't be for Ford; it would be for Kavanaugh.

And while I wouldn't be comfortable from an FBI deep dive, I think I would be more uncomfortable if they didn't do one based on such serious allegations if I were in line for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  Would you like such allegations hanging over your head for the rest of your career?  Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?

Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent?

[Fenring]

Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?

There is literally no such thing as proof of innocence, unless you're talking about producing a recording of someone's entire life to "prove" that a thing never happened?

Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent?

Do you see the double-edged sword your view is?

[Wayward Son]

What should her punishment be if it at the end of the process it can be conclusively proven that she made the whole thing up and none of it was true at all? There's the case of Brian Banks who served 5 years in prison on a false rape charge. It was proven beyond any doubt that the female made it all up and yet she never served a day in prison, was never even put on probation, and didn't even have to pick up trash on community service. It seems like false charges often aren't taken very seriously.

You know, I wouldn't mind if she were charged and convicted of perjury if it was shown she lied with mens rea, i.e. she knowingly lied with the purpose of destroying Kavanaugh's reputation.

Good luck with that, though.  Because it has been reported that she has previously mentioned this event at least twice over the years; once to her husband and once to a psychologist, IIRC.  Which shows this was not made-up in the past few weeks.

Misremembering an event is not a crime, IFAIK, just like not recalling an event is not a crime.  Assuming she completely believes what she says (and it certainly appears to be so), you don't have a case.

[Wayward Son]

Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?

There is literally no such thing as proof of innocence, unless you're talking about producing a recording of someone's entire life to "prove" that a thing never happened?

True.  But wouldn't you feel better if everything reasonable was done to either prove your innocent or guilt?  If nothing else, you can point to the investigation and say, "Hey, even the FBI couldn't find proof I did it!"

Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent?

Do you see the double-edged sword your view is?

Nope.  Explain it to me, please.  Because I do find Mrs. Ford credible.  And while I can imagine a number of scenarios where Kavanaugh is innocent and no one is lying, I can also imagine one where he is not innocent.

[Wayward Son]

Yale Law School chimes in, too.

[Fenring]

True.  But wouldn't you feel better if everything reasonable was done to either prove your innocent or guilt?  If nothing else, you can point to the investigation and say, "Hey, even the FBI couldn't find proof I did it!"

Why are you mentioning proving innocence again? There is no legal definition for innocence under the law; only whether a case for guilt can be made. In the absence of such a case the person IS innocent. Now, if the question was phrased differently, such as "would you voluntarily have the FBI investigate you even with no evidence and no case just to show that you're clean", then maybe that could be a good strategic move to head off such accusations. But that's different from whether asking whether any given person should be assumed to have to prove their innocence on a legal basis; they don't!

Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent?

Do you see the double-edged sword your view is?

Nope.  Explain it to me, please.  Because I do find Mrs. Ford credible.  And while I can imagine a number of scenarios where Kavanaugh is innocent and no one is lying, I can also imagine one where he is not innocent.

It's a double-edged sword because your word "comfortable" assumes that something uncomfortable is now in evidence, which is basically identical to saying that an accusation against a person makes you nervous. And as such you're defending the idea that we should feel nervous at an accusation in and of itself. I'm not even wading in to the details of this case since I don't know them, but you do know that "accusation of wrongdoing" will end up entering in a decision-making process like it or not, and therefore the process of muddying the waters regardless of outcome is the second edge of the sword you're wielding.

[Seriati]

Why are you mentioning proving innocence again? There is no legal definition for innocence under the law; only whether a case for guilt can be made. In the absence of such a case the person IS innocent. Now, if the question was phrased differently, such as "would you voluntarily have the FBI investigate you even with no evidence and no case just to show that you're clean", then maybe that could be a good strategic move to head off such accusations.

I just like to note that Kavanaugh has had the FBI investigate him six times already on this basis.

Without an on the record statement there are no legitimate claims to investigate.  Apparently the goal is to investigate while Ford remains free to change her story to match whatever is uncovered.

[Seriati]

You have this backwards, Seriati.  The FBI investigation woudn't be for Ford; it would be for Kavanaugh.

So nice of Ford and the Democrats to be demanding an FBI investigation for Kavanaugh's benefit.

Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?

Well of course.  If such a thing were actually possible.  There's a reason that the burden on proof is on the accuser.  It's generally impossible to prove innocence.  The idea that anyone could PROVE that an event didn't happen 35 years ago is beyond nonsensical.  Think about it. There would be no witnesses, cause the event didn't happen.  There would be no physical evidence cause it didn't happen, yet the accuser isn't required to produce any because you know none would have survived 35 years.

In this case what would that entail?  A detailed alibi for every single day and nigh for the period from what?  1980 through 1984?

And while I wouldn't be comfortable from an FBI deep dive, I think I would be more uncomfortable if they didn't do one based on such serious allegations if I were in line for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  Would you like such allegations hanging over your head for the rest of your career?

And what do you think happens if a Supreme Court Justice is convicted of rape?  Do you think they stay on the court in prison.  Lol.  This is not a magic get out of jail free card.

If there's proof this happened then keeping him off is one thing.  If there's no proof it's quite something else. 

Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent?

I am completely comfortable with Kavanaugh receiving an appointment.  If facts come up that warrant a change in that view so be it.

I think its interesting that we've had many leaders with actual felonies elected and appointed, but this is where you want to draw a line in the sand. 

[Wayward Son]

True.  But wouldn't you feel better if everything reasonable was done to either prove your innocent or guilt?  If nothing else, you can point to the investigation and say, "Hey, even the FBI couldn't find proof I did it!"

Why are you mentioning proving innocence again? There is no legal definition for innocence under the law; only whether a case for guilt can be made. In the absence of such a case the person IS innocent. Now, if the question was phrased differently, such as "would you voluntarily have the FBI investigate you even with no evidence and no case just to show that you're clean", then maybe that could be a good strategic move to head off such accusations. But that's different from whether asking whether any given person should be assumed to have to prove their innocence on a legal basis; they don't!

You're right.  I'm not talking about a legal basis, since this isn't a court trial (unless you include the court of public opinion ).

Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent?

Do you see the double-edged sword your view is?

Nope.  Explain it to me, please.  Because I do find Mrs. Ford credible.  And while I can imagine a number of scenarios where Kavanaugh is innocent and no one is lying, I can also imagine one where he is not innocent.

It's a double-edged sword because your word "comfortable" assumes that something uncomfortable is now in evidence, which is basically identical to saying that an accusation against a person makes you nervous. And as such you're defending the idea that we should feel nervous at an accusation in and of itself. I'm not even wading in to the details of this case since I don't know them, but you do know that "accusation of wrongdoing" will end up entering in a decision-making process like it or not, and therefore the process of muddying the waters regardless of outcome is the second edge of the sword you're wielding.

I still don't quite understand what you're saying.  Of course we should be nervous that the accusation was made, for the simple fact that it could be true.

Are you saying that people might make false accusations and "muddy the waters" of the person's reputation?  Well, yes, of course.  That's always been the case.  We knew that all along.  But we can't just dismiss accusations just because some might be false.  And you, as an individual, can't just dismiss and ignore credible accusations just because you know them to be false.  Because your reputation comes from other people, not yourself.  So regardless of how innocent you know you are, if other people think you're guilty, your reputation is sunk.

I guess my problem is I see no alternative.  Do we ignore Ford's accusation simply because we don't see how it can be corroborated?  That's precisely what every rapist wants, since he (almost always) can choose the situation to make sure no one else knows.

I'm not saying we immediately assume the accuser is telling the truth.  But neither can we immediately assume (or on scant evidence) that the accuser is lying, either.  That's why an investigation is warranted.  To see if there is any evidence available, one way or another, by an unbiased source (or at least as unbiased as we have).

I dunno.  I guess I still don't see the second edge, or at least don't see how we can avoid it without dulling the edge of Truth.

[Wayward Son]

You have this backwards, Seriati.  The FBI investigation woudn't be for Ford; it would be for Kavanaugh.

So nice of Ford and the Democrats to be demanding an FBI investigation for Kavanaugh's benefit.

Hey, Democrats have been known to be wrong before.

Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?

Well of course.  If such a thing were actually possible.  There's a reason that the burden on proof is on the accuser.  It's generally impossible to prove innocence.  The idea that anyone could PROVE that an event didn't happen 35 years ago is beyond nonsensical.  Think about it. There would be no witnesses, cause the event didn't happen.  There would be no physical evidence cause it didn't happen, yet the accuser isn't required to produce any because you know none would have survived 35 years.

In this case what would that entail?  A detailed alibi for every single day and nigh for the period from what?  1980 through 1984?

So you're saying that, unless the accuser has undeniable proof that the event happened, he/she should keep his mouth shut and pretend it didn't happen?  Is that the alternative?

I never said it would be possible to absolutely prove an event didn't happen.  But if you gather all the evidence and examine it, you will be able to come to a better conclusion than if you don't bother gathering any evidence, or only some. And if after gathering all the evidence, there still isn't enough to decide that the person is guilty, that's a stronger argument that you are innocent than if you haven't looked at all the evidence.

And while I wouldn't be comfortable from an FBI deep dive, I think I would be more uncomfortable if they didn't do one based on such serious allegations if I were in line for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  Would you like such allegations hanging over your head for the rest of your career?

And what do you think happens if a Supreme Court Justice is convicted of rape?  Do you think they stay on the court in prison.  Lol.  This is not a magic get out of jail free card.

If there's proof this happened then keeping him off is one thing.  If there's no proof it's quite something else.

You seem to think that if there isn't the amount of proof that would get someone convicted in a court of law, that means there is no proof and the whole thing should be ignored.

I would think by now you were familiar enough with situations where you had extremely strong suspicions that someone was probably guilty of a crime, but there wasn't enough proof to convince a jury.  Instances where, even though the Justice Department felt that there was nothing to indict, that you felt that there was enough evidence to come to a conclusion.  That if you got to vote on the integrity of the person, you would vote to "lock him up!"  I'm sure you're familiar with such situations.

The problem here is that it's harder to remove someone from office than to not appoint him in the first place.  The standard of proof to get someone removed is higher--even if the person is guilty.  Which is why, during elections, accusations can be made even if there is not enough proof to put someone in jail.  We trust the people to decide if the accusation alone are enough to warrant not electing a person to office.  It's the same with this hearing, where Senators can decide for themselves if there is enough proof even if there is not enough to indict, or even to warrant removal after appointment.

Why are you so intent on making sure they don't have all the information now?

Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent?

I am completely comfortable with Kavanaugh receiving an appointment.  If facts come up that warrant a change in that view so be it.

I think its interesting that we've had many leaders with actual felonies elected and appointed, but this is where you want to draw a line in the sand.

You think I'm worried about Republicans investigating leaders?  After all the Benghazi hearings?    I'm surprised if they don't investigate every Democrat in office!

Where I'm drawing the line is in not investigating what sounds like a credible accusation, based on the fact that they don't want to delay the appointment any longer, when the last appointment was delayed over 300 days, and this hasn't been going on for more than 60 days.  Obviously, Republicans have one set of standards for Democrat's nominees, and an entirely different on for their own. 

[TheDrake]

And if after gathering all the evidence, there still isn't enough to decide that the person is guilty, that's a stronger argument that you are innocent than if you haven't looked at all the evidence.

What evidence? The issue here isn't undeniable proof, its any proof, or the possibility of proof. And if this were two months ago, yeah okay, let the FBI (or appropriately the local authorities) go through the motions, waste resources, and then firmly announce the foregone conclusion.

Why do I care? I'm no great fan of Kavanaugh, I'm not dying for him to take his seat on the court. But I don't want dirty politics to result in a reward for those practicing it. I don't like more fuel on the FBI Deep State fire that can further erode public confidence. Why do you think they want to stay out of this? I know how fallible memory can be, and the news has saturated and tainted just about any possible witness at this point. Suddenly you get somebody remembering something with all the power and accuracy of Trump's 9/11 accounts.

[Seriati]

So you're saying that, unless the accuser has undeniable proof that the event happened, he/she should keep his mouth shut and pretend it didn't happen?  Is that the alternative?

Undeniable evidence?  How about ANY evidence?

There's nothing here that could be credibly investigated.  If she swears out a statement either to the Senate or to the MD police, we'd have her claims.  Even then, there's no evidence of intent to rape, which flat out means the statute of limitations has expired.

I never said it would be possible to absolutely prove an event didn't happen.

Sure you did, you just called in "prove your innocence."

Since you want to claim that we haven't looked at all the evidence, list it out.

The "witness" has been contacted, said it didn't happen.
The "accused" has been contacted, said it didn't happen.
The "victim" has said it happened, but can't give a location, a date (not even a year) or really anything else, and her own corroborating account doesn't mention Kavanaugh and is factually inconsistent with her claim.

Do you have an address?  A date?  Something else?

Are you suggesting we look for rumors from 35 years ago?  If any of her friends came forward it would mean one of 2 things, either she lied about telling someone, or they are lying about what they know.

Where is this other "evidence" coming from?  Fact is you have no idea, all you want is an open ended "digging expedition."  That has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with fairness.

Kavanaugh has a stellar record that he can be reviewed on, including in his personal life.  In your view we should discount that when we weigh his credibility?  Why?  What actual basis is there to believe he is lying?

You seem to think that if there isn't the amount of proof that would get someone convicted in a court of law, that means there is no proof and the whole thing should be ignored.

No.  There is no proof here.

There is an accusation.

I believe that an accusation without proof is worthless on this matter.

There are no "extremely strong suspicions" of a crime, there is innuendo and a lot of political wishing it to be true.

Why are you so intent on making sure they don't have all the information now?

When did you stop beating your wife?

The standard is what evidence has the accuser brought forward.  The answer is none. 

The accuser hasn't made a claim that can be investigated and hasn't gone on record.  They have all the actual information.

You think I'm worried about Republicans investigating leaders?

No, I think you're hypocritical that an unproven accusation that a teenage boy groped a teenage girl where there is no evidence and its contrary to his entire public life is enough to stop a nomination, but that plenty of existing politicians have worse accusations in their backgrounds and you don't have a problem with it.

Should we disallow anyone from public office that has been accused of any crime?  Is that the new standard?

Where I'm drawing the line is in not investigating what sounds like a credible accusation,

Walk me through it.  What exactly makes this "sound" credible?

As far as I can tell all that makes it sound credible is that a woman said it.

[Grant]

The only thing you are missing is that those questions have never been asked of Ford. So it isn't unusual that all of those details aren't in the media reports.

Presumably these are things an FBI investigation could reveal, were the President or senate committee to request the FBI continue their background investigation on Kavanaugh. If her story has lots of holes an FBI report would bear that out, on the other hand the FBI could find some other corroborating evidence if they looked into the matter. Refusing to do anything other than listen to Ford make the allegation and Kavanaugh deny the allegation is just a show.

These are all questions that the Senate can ask and do not require the FBI.  The FBI is a law enforcement agency with a specific purview.  This purview does not include investigating accusations of sexual assaults that occurred 35 years ago.  I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea of the President of the United States, even under the insistence of Congress, to utilize the FBI to conduct political investigations for political venues.  The idea of Hoover and Nixon and Trump or anyone in the future using the FBI as a political tool is disturbing to me.  I understand we have the precedent of the Hill investigation.  But what I take from that is that the investigation did not clear the matter.  I'm sure the Maryland State Police would be happy to conduct an investigation if Ford is willing to give them a sworn statement.  After all the FBI has been subjected to in the last few years, I'd rather it stay in it's lane.  No matter the results of the investigation, which I imagine would be the same as the Hill investigation, the FBI will be accused by one or both parties of something.  Whatever the investigation would uncover, it would not be presented to a criminal court, but it would be used in a political court, the US Senate, which not even the dumbest of Americans would consider as a properly unbiased jury, and the court of public opinion, which is probably even more useless when pursuing justice. 

[Grant]

Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?

Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent?

This generally ignores the idea of the presumption of innocence, but I think others have already pointed this out.  Proving you are innocent is something you do in a Soviet trial, not an American one.   I understand that the presumption of innocence of the accused generally translates to a presumption of false accusation on the part of the accuser.  This is simply the way due process works.  I also understand that Kavanaugh is not in a criminal trial, and does not face criminal charges, but is subject to a political court.  This, in my opinion, makes the presumption of innocence even more important rather than less, since the motives are suspect and the biases are so obvious.  I understand that the presumption of false accusation is a very sore and delicate point when it comes to sexual assault accusations.  This is because so many sexual predators, rapists, etc, have evaded justice because of the presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt rather than innocence.  Some people would argue that this is a result of patriarchy.  I tend to believe it is simply the nature of the crime.  Sexual assault and harassment, usually perpetrated by men against women, is often extremely difficult to prove and provide evidence for.  It's the same way for fraud when there is no paper trail.     

[Wayward Son]

Seriati, you have a very narrow definition of "proof."

Are ten people recalling Ford telling them of the incident at the time "proof?"

Is an entry in a diary at the time "proof?"

Is someone hearing rumors of the event at the time "proof?"

Is someone recalling Kavanaugh admitting to the incident years ago "proof?"

Do you deny that the FBI could find at least one of these "proofs?"

Remember, we are not talking about legal, "beyond a reasonable doubt" type "proof."  We are talking about the type of proof politics uses.  To find one story more reasonable than the other.  Maybe not to the level you would need to throw someone in jail, but enough to give more credence to one story over the other.  The level one would need for a security clearance, for instance.

The FBI routinely vets candidates for office.  They are good at it, at getting people to talk about others, revealing what they really think, what they heard but maybe don't want to talk about.  Not to mention the fact that you can go to jail for lying to them.  They can find out things others can't.

If nothing else comes up, then that is favorable to Kavanaugh's account.  But we won't know it until we look.  And if we don't look, there will always be that question whether it was out there or not.

[Pete at Home]

Do you deny that the FBI could find at least one of these "proofs?"

In the context of a legal accusations of rape, I find it shameful that we’re even talking about the house that J Wdgar Hoover built should have credible means to “find” that evidence “proved” anything.  We’re talking about an organization with a documented history of planting false sexual allegations.

Judges and juries make findings of fact. Proposing that the FBI be interested to do so is a declaration of war against the Constitution

[Pete at Home]

I would rather stack SCOTUS with a generation of rapists than create a rule that encourages last minute 30 year old politically motivated rape accusations against every candidate. 

Kavanaugh already is a federal judge for life. Please explain Wayward why you are so comfy with that?

[TheDeamon]

This is sort of in the same department but different door to the issue of propaganda or 'fake news', where just by hearing the spurious story many peoples' minds will already be set and no new information will significantly undo the effect that the initial story had. In the case of random news stories I don't know what the remedy is; but for criminal accusations I feel like more protections are needed if the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" is to remain a real public value.

"Innocent until proven guilty" died a brutal death in a cold dark alley a long time ago. The only place it gets any traction seems to be in court rooms, and even then, it can be rather dubious.

[Pete at Home]

How can you regard a credible accusation where the accuser doesn’t even remember the time the place or the year that the alleged attack occurred?

The only way to get more ridiculous than this is to take that that the child sex abuse allegation that we had against trump earlier where there we didn’t even have the name of an accuser it was some generic unspoken person we can’t even show it was a woman.

[Crunch]

Kavanaugh already is a federal judge for life. Please explain Wayward why you are so comfy with that?

I’d like to hear why he’s so comfy with Cory Booker who’s actually confessed to sexually assaulting a gril when he was a teen. And also why he’s so comfy with Keith Ellison who is facing highly credible and recent accusations that he physically abused his girlfriend.

[Grant]

I'm kinda surprised no one is framing the problem in the following way, but maybe I missed it somewhere.  I did read it put this way, but I think it was on Twitter. 

A confirmation hearing is not a criminal trial.  The goal is not to met justice, but to ascertain the candidate's fitness for the office.  It's more of a job interview than a trial.  The problem is that at this point, the applicant has been accused of a crime.  Even more problematic, depending on your understanding and definition of justice, is that the crime supposedly happened 35 some years ago when the accused was a minor. 

So we've had a job applicant accused of a crime.  This is where I'm going to start laying out the argument.  The Judiciary Committee should not (in reality they cannot) attempt to met justice, but should perform risk mitigation.  There is the possibility that the accused, who is applying for a lifetime office of extreme import and power in the United States government, is guilty.  You run the risk of placing a sex offender in the lifetime office of extreme import.  Because this risk exists, and because there are other candidates who do not pose this risk, it's simply good risk management to drop Kavanaugh and go with a different applicant. 

In outline:
A. Kavanaugh should be dropped as a candidate
B. Because he poses a risk that other candidates do not.

This is what argumentation calls a Claim of Policy.  You identify a problem. You propose a plan.  You show how the plan solves the problem. 

Problem: Kavanaugh poses a risk as a Supreme Court Justice
Plan: Drop him and go with someone else.
How it solves: He would no longer be a risk. 


By now it should be easy to see some of the problems I kind of have with this argument.  First, the actual problem has not been clearly defined.  Assuming that Kavanaugh actually commited sexual assault or attempted rape as a 17 year old, what risk does he pose as a Supreme Court Justice? 

Depending on your views, it's possible that we already have a sexual criminal on the Supreme Court in the person of Justice Clarence Thomas.  Depending on your views, we already have had sexual criminal in the Presidency, and may currently have one.  The actual risk/problem has not been clearly defined.  The only clear problem is the idea that sexual crimes are proof of bad character, and that bad character is disqualifying for high office.  Maybe any office.  I'm actually a fan of that argument, but I don't see the majority of people in the United States, in both parties, seeing that as a problem.  A good deal of Republicans don't seem to care about the bad character and past civil actions against Donald Trump.  Most Democrats didn't seem to care about the allegations against President Clinton.  Politically, the idea of bad character being disqualifying is flat.  It can't go anywhere. 

What other risks/problems does it bring up?  Are we worried that Kavanaugh will sexually assault women he works with, like his clerks, or other Justices?  There doesn't seem to be anything to support this risk.  He's been a judge for how many years?  Where are the examples of his sexual crimes? 

The actual job of a Justice is to make decisions regarding constitutional law.  Does being a sexual criminal effect one's ability to make decisions regarding constitutional law?  NFL teams generally don't fire someone because they fight dogs or beat their wives, because it has no bearing on their ability to play football.  Recently the NFL had begun firing players because they beat their wives, because it reflected poorly on the NFL, which developed a poor image.  It was a political decision.  There doesn't seem to be any connection between his ability to make legal decisions and his possible guilt.  Again, he's been a judge for how many years?  Where are the examples of how his possible guilt have effected his decisions. 

Secondly, if any of these are true risks, the simple plan of removing him from consideration as a Supreme Court Justice does not really solve these risks.  If these risks are real, then they are just as real for a member of the DC US Court of Appeals.  You would have to impeach Kavanaugh. 

Lastly, there are the problems that the proposed solution may in fact create as opposed to the ones it may solve.  Your solution will keep a possible juvenile sex offender off the Supreme Court.  But it will also mean that ANY accusation, no matter the lack of evidence, could be reason to pass over a candidate.  You have created a no-risk environment where risks can be easily created.  You have created an environment that encourages what the ancient Greeks referred to as "sycophants". 

[TheDeamon]

The problem is that at this point, the applicant has been accused of a crime.  Even more problematic, depending on your understanding and definition of justice, is that the crime supposedly happened 35 some years ago when the accused was a minor.

Problem the second: If the crime occurred while a minor, and if the offense had been "properly handled" at the time, chances are the offense would be part of a sealed record as it involved actions undertaken as a minor.

So we've had a job applicant accused of a crime.  This is where I'm going to start laying out the argument.  The Judiciary Committee should not (in reality they cannot) attempt to met justice, but should perform risk mitigation.  There is the possibility that the accused, who is applying for a lifetime office of extreme import and power in the United States government, is guilty.  You run the risk of placing a sex offender in the lifetime office of extreme import.  Because this risk exists, and because there are other candidates who do not pose this risk, it's simply good risk management to drop Kavanaugh and go with a different applicant.

Now an additional problem: This presumes that "being a sex offender" is universally a compulsive behavior, and further, that it is untreatable and as such renders them as something much like an alcoholic who shall forevermore remain "in recovery." Except the narrative is that even granting them that much leniency is intolerable.

It also ignores the whole thing of "young, dumb, and full of cum" not that it excuses the behavior, far from it, but the seriousness I'd treat such an offense by a teenager is very different than the same offense being carried out by a middle aged man(or older -- aka "Harvey Weinstein" and/or "Anthony Wiener" both of whom should have known better based on both age, and positions held).

[Crunch]

Recapping.

Ford claims she was assaulted at a party. She cannot recall when the party was, where it was how she got there, nor how she left. Some of the details have have varied. She currently says 4 other people were there. All 4 of Ford's named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party - including one that has been a lifelong friend of Ford’s and is the ex wife of a democrat operative.

Kavanaugh has been through six different background investigations without a hint of misconduct found. 65 women that have known him during all phases of his life, teen to now, say they’ve never seen anything that would remotely indicate Kavanaugh would do something like this.

Kavanaugh is pushing to hold hearings on this and wants this cleared. Ford is fighting it and appears to be ready to refuse to testify, making demands that are essentially impossible to comply with and making claims that are contradictory (like she can’t fly but interning in Hawaii) delaying at every opportunity.

This is considered credible and should force Kavanaugh out.

Meanwhile Cory Booker has confessed to sexual assault as a teen and Keith Ellison has had very recent accusations of assaulting a women. This is perfectly acceptable to Ford’s supporters and the left.

Un*censored*ingbelivable

[Pete at Home]

30 years is more than enough time to manipulate memory.

The publicity given these last months mute sex charges against top federal appointments are deplorable because they are mob rule actions. Half the country chases the accused with insufficient evidence, while others inevitably accuse the accuser of lying and all sorts of horrors... which creates an environment where sex abuse victims are less likely to come forward.

[rightleft22]

"With the 'Top Gun' slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast," Booker wrote of that night. "After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my 'mark.'" The point of Booker's column was how that moment, and his work on the issue after, had changed him -- and his views on women, consent and assault -- forever. "It was a wake-up call," Booker wrote in his Stanford column. "I will never be the same."

This is the problem I have with bringing up accusation’s years after the fact, especially those done in the teenage years. We judge those involved in the moment against today's standards. I do not know one guy in my teen years that did not try to go “for the danger zone”. (every movie we watched encouraged such behavior – which I know does not make it right) Most got the hand slapped away and some were ashamed and learned something about themselves .  That’s the thing everyone, men and woman do stupid things, especially teenagers. Most people learn from the experience and try to do better. I truly believe that.

I personally don’t want my character to be defined by a 60 second awkward fumbling attempt at going into the “danger zone”. god it was embarrassing, I had no idea what I was doing or even really why and if anyone was traumatized it was me. The Girl knew how to take care of herself and for that I feel fortunate as it forced me to take a good look at myself and kind of man I wanted to be. 

I personally believe Ford and understand her not going to authorities at the time. I also suspect that Kavanaugh remembers. And that the difference between Booker and Ford.

The question I have for Kavanaugh is what they learned. The experience could make Kavanaugh a better Judge or if he cannot face his shadow a really really bad one. Has Kavanaugh had to rule in many sexual assault cases?

And I agree with Pete. If the me too movement intent is to make it safer for woman and men who were abused to come forward this politicizing is going to back fire. That said I don't know how we can go about making the changes that need to happen. In a perfect world the issue would be addressed in the moment before it got to the point of abuse were both parties are given a chance to learn something

[Crunch]

I personally believe Ford and understand her not going to authorities at the time.

You believe something happened at some point, roughy 36 years ago, in a place and time  that nobody can remember, something every single identified witness denies happened.

In other words, the accusation is the only proof you need.

You’re gonna love these rules when they’re applied to you.

[Crunch]

As Ford’s story falls apart and the lie becomes obvious to anyine with 2 brain cells to rub together, good lord almighty, it’s a miracle! Another one comes forward at te very last minute!  Amazing!

Deborah Ramirez says Kavanaugh flashed here at a drunken college party 35 years ago. Ramirez admits gaps in her memory and wasn’t certain it was Kavanaugh. By the way, did you know Ramirez is a democrat?

The New Yorker tried to find eyewitnesses... and failed. As with Ford, none of Ramirez’s supporters that believe her saw this incident.  They’ve just heard her recent accusations.

Also similarly, others alleged to have been involved deny it happened.  Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not.

An unnamed former friend said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” Ramirez and the unnamed friend were close all through their years at Yale, and said that Kavanaugh remained part of their “larger social circle.” According to the story, this friend of Ramirez initially suggested “that Ramirez may have been politically motivated” in coming forward with the allegation.

Ramirez, just like Ford, is lying.

[NobleHunter]

I'm sure rightleft will be crushed when their nomination to the Supreme Court is derailed by accusations of sexual assault.

[TheDrake]

Meanwhile Cory Booker has confessed to sexual assault as a teen and Keith Ellison has had very recent accusations of assaulting a women. This is perfectly acceptable to Ford’s supporters and the left.

Why didn't you let your good arguments stand on their own? The whole "meanwhile somebody else did something bad" lacks relevance and diminishes everything else you say.

[Grant]

Oh, let's not forget that Michael Avenatti has stepped forward, on Twitter of all places, with the claim that he represents a client and has credible evidence that implicates Kavanaugh in what I can only describe as a "rape ring" of boys who used drugs and alcohol at parties to subsequently gang rape women. 

Well, the largest problem was that there was no supposed pattern.  Now there is one.  The smoke has been produced.  The question is whether there is any fire and how hard will it be looked for.  At this point, some investigatory body, I would prefer the Maryland State Police but if they really want to talk to the FBI more power to them, should probably do a speedy investigation.  The accusation by Ford alone did not have much weight.  The accusations of two or more witnesses is enough to change the math to either 1) we have a judge who was a sexual predator in his early teens and/or twenties, or 2) we have a concerted slanderous attack on a sitting federal court judge.  One way or the other, someone is going to have to pay a piper. 

I'm personally dubious that investigation of continued accusations of wrongdoing that occurred 30-35 years ago will yield much more in the way of evidence.  As I've said before, producing evidence for sexual assault can be tough.  These new allegations seem to be more solid and more easily investigated rather than the initial Ford accusation though. 

And of course, because the setting is a political trial rather than a criminal trial, there are no rules about a burden of proof.  Considering the bias involved in the Senate, the Democrats would all probably have voted against him regardless of these accusations, and unless a "smoking gun" is produced (flashback to Clinton defense), most of the Republicans will vote to confirm.  This is basically a big show for the American public, with the possible addition of Senators Collins and Murkowski involved.  Are you not entertained? 

The court of public opinion is now in full swing.  The political court is bubbling and about to burst.  Two major problems with this. 

1.  In the court of public opinion, lots of people are not looking for proof.  Probably because there isn't any.  What we have is probability.  An individual's view of the probability of the accusations being true are all tied to rather fuzzy facts/science.  What % of sexual assault accusations are proven true?  What % of accusations actually occurred?  Etc Etc.  These kinds of stats are poisonous when it comes to criminal justice, but they are easily grasped when it comes to political opinion.  Depending on your point of view, having three women come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct can lead to a high degree of possibility that at least one of them occurred.  So we're stuck with opinion based on some fuzzy numbers.  None of this is sufficient in a criminal court.  They can be persuasive in a political court. 

2.  We're not just talking about anyone.  We're talking about a Federal judge, who may become a Supreme Court Justice.  Again, the risk has not been fleshed out, other than the fact that you don't want to be seen rewarding poor behavior, and if any of the assaults did happen, then Kavanaugh is still lying about it and perjuring himself.  This has politics all over it.  Who do you really trust?  Republicans don't trust Democrats and Democrats don't trust Republicans.  That's why we don't try criminal cases in Congress. 

[Grant]

Meanwhile Cory Booker has confessed to sexual assault as a teen and Keith Ellison has had very recent accusations of assaulting a women. This is perfectly acceptable to Ford’s supporters and the left.

Why didn't you let your good arguments stand on their own? The whole "meanwhile somebody else did something bad" lacks relevance and diminishes everything else you say.

I think this is a good point and important when it comes to arguing cases based on the merits of the arguments themselves.  Keith Ellison's guilt or innocence has nothing to do with Kavanaughs. 

Yet, it's important to note that the charges against Ellison and Booker go to the credibility and faith to be put in the Democrats in Congress.  Pointing out hipocracy is a way to undercut the argument, and it's valid.  Logically, the truth has nothing to do with the messenger.  In reality, the boy who cries wolf isn't believed.  Democrats have always had a double standard when it comes to unproven sexual crimes.  Republicans are automatically guilty, and Democrats get the benefit of the doubt.  It goes both ways.  Some Republicans believe all kinds of stuff about President Obama and Hillary Clinton, but Trump can do no wrong.  We'd all be better off by sticking to principals rather then bending them to suit our political agendas.  Hard to do in Congress. 

[TheDrake]

Let's bear in mind that Franken was bounced without much struggle or delay, for miming a sexually inappropriate gesture among a few other things. I certainly didn't hear many Democrats pointing out that some Republicans had done much worse than him.

Playing the "but there's somebody else who is bad" game turns into an Oroborous of tail eating until you finally run out of people on the other side to point at. That takes a while, given the dubious nature of most people in politics.