In the case of Feinstein in particular, this is not their stance. Feinstein did not want a full investigation, and sat on the allegation until it was too late. If Feinstein were really convinced that the allegation should be investigated, she would have asked Kavanaugh about it during the hearings or in closed session.
This has been explained to you already.
Regards,
Shodan
If we were talking about a criminal trial, we would want proof beyond a reasonable doubt (maybe 95% confidence). If it were a civil trial, we’d be talking preponderance of the evidence (51% confidence of guilt). But being a Supreme Court Justice is a privilege, not a right. People are entitled to their liberty, but not to a seat on the Supreme Court. What degree of confidence do we need to deny a nomination? Should we be happy if there’s only a 40% chance that a Justice is an attempted rapist? What about 25%?
I’m saying if you had anything even remotely close to what was on Franken, Kavanaugh would be done. Kaput. This isn’t about Trump, it is about Kavanaugh. We can go down the whataboutism rabbit hole all day, and it will not be productive, I assure you. Given the vagueness of the allegations, and the willingness of Republicans to hear her story, I see nothing wrong with how they’ve done by Kavanaugh on this issue. YMMV.
Why do you think this? She’s already done the whole “I have no recollection” thing on how she got to the party, and home from it, and which house it was at, and which year it was. How would the FBI expose that (if that were the case)?
If we put the sexual assault allegation aside for a bit, it bothers me how little attention Kanavaugh’s suspected underaged alcohol abuse is getting. That too has recently emerged as his past has been dug up, but I don’t even see anyone challenging the idea that he binged drank; it’s as if we are not surprised that a person with his background would have such a history. Last I checked, though, 17 year olds drinking was as illegal in 1983 Maryland as it is now. It would be one thing if we were only talking about an occasional sip of champagne during the holidays or something. But we’re not. “Bart O’Kavanaugh” apparently was raised in a culture where drinking to the point of blacking out and getting sick in crazy random places was the height of fun. In other words, evidence suggests he was inculcated with the view that following the law was optional if it stood in the way of him and people like him having the fun owed to them.
Should this not factor into how we assess his candidacy? I think so. A 17 year-old is old enough to know right from wrong (as many 17 year-olds tried as adult for crimes can attest to). Has Kavanaugh been asked whether he regularly drank alcohol in high school, to the extent that he may have blacked out on one or more occasions at parties and other settings? How confident are any of us that he would answer this question honestly? I don’t think he would, even though I think there is no shortage of evidence to support this.
Now, going back to Ford’s allegation: Kavanaugh defenders are focused on hand waving her story, claiming among other things that her memory isn’t reliable. But if we have good reason to believe that not only did young Kavanaugh have a history of getting blacked out drunk during parties (Judge’s memoir), then him not being honest about this history plus not showing any remorse about breaking the law in his illicit use of alcohol as a teen would effectively negate any weight assigned to his denial about Ford, IMO.
I’m not saying this means we should assume he attempted rape and should be locked up, but if we can’t trust him to come clean about anything bad in his past, then his credibility is trash. There ceases to be a good reason to appoint him to the SCOTUS when more trustworthy candidates are out there.
The two situations aren’t similar. One had photographic evidence, the other has some vague memory without specifics.
Feinstein sucks and should resign immediately, but since she hasn’t she’s done the next best thing, which is take the morally correct stance from the situation we’re in in the present going forward, which is to advocate for a full investigation of Kavanaugh before any vote. I’ve explained this multiple times, but I’m happy to do so again.
What I got out of it was that the tiger moms husband (Tony?) said that K liked them to have a certain look, for a clerkship. It’s not a smoking gun, but rather a curious fact pattern which is part of the story. If you don’t want to hear about it now, that’s OK. At some point it may be relevant. Ask any FBI agent.
Not only was there photographic evidence of Trump bragging about multiple instances of sexual assault, there was video and audio evidence as well. At least the Republicans are making some tiny semblance of interest in finding out more about Kavanaugh; they haven’t done jack shit about investigating the credible allegations against (and admissions by) Trump.
I’m extremely skeptical.
Your statement that I challenged said “If he’s innocent and truly cares most about clearing his name over being confirmed, then he’d advocate for a delay and a full FBI investigation.” Why are you responding about what would happen if he’s guilty?
On another note Keith Ellison’s Accuser Reiterates Claims Against Deputy DNC Chair Amid Kavanaugh Debate
Are you saying underage drinking is a disqualifier for high office? Would you say the same about marijuana use? That was also illegal, everywhere, in the US in 1983 and in many places today.
This is false. The FBI conducts background investigations of all judicial nominees, which often include matters unrelated to federal crimes and are updated when new information comes to light. For example, they often examine a nominees financial affairs to determine whether the candidate is vulnerable to blackmail or bribery. The FBI does not require a nexus to a federal crime in order to investigate the background of a nominee for the Senate.
Of course the FBI does not want to investigate this. The GOP’s current frontman is smearing them every day, and they do not want any more political exposure than they already have. Similarly, Trump, Session, and Grassley do not want an FBI investigation for political reasons. But that has nothing to do with their jurisdictional authority.
It would be nice is conservatives stopped repeating this canard.
I’m not. Dishonest people tend to crack under pressure.
Apologies! So sorry.
The Democratic party still has a long, long way to go on this. They’re ahead of the Republicans on this issue, but similar to what I’ve said before, that’s like being not as anti-semitic as Hitler.
Just as an aside, how would you grade the seriousness of these two accounts:
“I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my “mark.” Our groping ended soon and while no “relationship” ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn’t really know what she was doing.”
“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Trying, as best you can, to take the respective people out of it and look at the accounts objectively, which one sounds like a more serious violation of consent to you? #1 or #2?
It was a just few years ago. We are in the infancy of a world where weed is OK for candidates. Do you know that?
As far as the drinking: that school had problems, and as I said before, not many people can claim to be a famous teenage blackout drunk but kavanughs bud was. In blackouts one might not remember something.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school/index.html
Every day it looks more and more like we need a deeper dive into this. We don’t need a full 9 on the scotus anyway.
It does seem a rather oddly puritanical objection. 
I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a substantial majority of those who hold public office and those on the various benches, including the USSC who has such a squeaky clean record in their teens…or who just blithely volunteers their under age drinking or illicit drug use when they were 17 in a hearing setting (or even to the public when running for office).
The more this discussion evolves the more it seems to me to be about oxes and Gores. Maybe there is some fire here somewhere, but it sure looks like a lot of smoke and hot air at this point.
That said, I won’t shed any tears if Kavanaugh doesn’t get the seat.
I forgot to point out the other false part of this narrative, which is the attempt to distinguish Anita Hill. Sexual harassment is not a federal crime.
Too late for what? Did we pass a line where investigating a possible sex crime is no longer possible? Has he already been given his lifetime appointment to the SC?
There’s a lot of room between deliberate dishonesty and no bias at all. To the extent that political bias is involved at all - and I’m not saying it was, but that’s your suggestion here - it’s not likely to be in the form of a completely concocted tale out of political motivations. More likely that her recollection of what happened 36 years ago (or 30 years prior, at the time she first discussed it) was very hazy as to what happened (possibly even who was involved) and in filling in the many many blanks she was influenced by political bias. Nothing the FBI can do about this, of course.
not sure why people think attacking Collins is a good idea , that will likely backfire big time. (that attack started even before the attempted rape store surfaced)