Even more likely than that, perhaps, is that she’s telling a truthful and accurate account. A full investigation would be more likely than doing nothing in shedding light on this possibility.
“Distinguish” Anita Hill? Because harassment is not a Federal crime? Huh? Whut? This question is guaranteed snark-free. Smart guy doesn’t get it, film at eleven…
That is because they really don’t think that what Kavanagh is alleged to have done is a bad thing. It is a thing that many have said something along the lines of “who hasn’t done that?”
If you are not able to grok that attempted rape is a bad thing, even when a teenage, even when drunk, then you are unable to understand why attempted rape and an inappropriate touch are miles apart. They are both the same to them, both are perfectly fine.
Yet again, this is about your statement that “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.”
I’ve always sucked at hypotheticals, especially when discussing multiple things in the same thread. From now on I’m going to try and only post on things as they are to minimize confusion.
Yes, of course. A republican SCOTUS nominee was torpedoed for admitting to pot use in 1987.
What I *can’t *seem to come up with is a case where a person was disqualified from high office for underage drinking. Is there precedent for that?
Realistically, how would you investigate this? We are talking about something that happened at a party full of drunk teens 36 years ago. It wasn’t reported at the time, so there is no rape kit. I suppose if you could actually find folks who were there you could interview them…but to what end? Do you remember the details of what you were doing at a party where you were drinking 36 years ago? Witness testimony is considered unreliable for crimes committed in the recent past, so what would witness testimony accomplish in this situation? What could the FBI possibly find aside from testimony? There won’t be a shred of forensic evidence at this point, after all. There weren’t, as far as I know, any video cameras (hell, there weren’t even video cell phones at that point), so no visual evidence.
If Ford was paid off to do this, or otherwise had dishonest motives other than to reveal the truth, then an investigation might reveal this. If Kavanaugh (or Judge) has a history of doing this to others, an investigation might reveal some evidence of this. If Kavanaugh and/or Judge have a history of blackout drinking at the time, an investigation might reveal this. There are lots of other possibilities. Doing nothing has zero chance of finding any of this out; a full investigation has a non-zero chance.
I think most of realize that if we start imposing that standard, we’d have very few people eligible for high office. Obama certainly would have been disqualified over use of illegal drugs, including cocaine. We already had one SCOTUS nominee dumped because he smoked pot at one point, and I for one don’t want to go back to those days.
The Democrats had several days to question him about binge drinking in high school, and they did not do so. I’m glad they didn’t, and don’t care one way or another.
It’s illegal at a federal level everywhere in the US today.
And yet again you “forget” to include the lead-up to the incident described by Booker, which places it within the context of a consensual make-out session where boundaries are being explored. You failed to answer me the first time I asked why you did that, and here you are doing it again. Why?
But what if she really believes this happened, wasn’t paid off…but is wrong? Or deluded? Or just has a fuzzy view of what happened because of being impaired by alcohol? What if the FBI investigates and finds some people ‘remember’ the events one way, but some ‘remember’ them another? Or that they get a series of different versions, none of which really coincide or mesh up?
That’s the thing. We know that memories can be altered. And this is without factoring in things like alcohol. We are talking about something that happened 36 years ago. Even giving the total benefit of the doubt that this is exactly what happened, that Kavanaugh did try and rape her, I don’t see how the FBI could investigate this and determine that without some sort of solid forensic evidence. Even if half the people at that party come forth with a similar tale that corroborates that narrative I don’t see how that would be decisive. Hell, I’m not sure how the FBI could even corroborate who was actually at the party at this point, so you could have a situation where someone claims to have been but wasn’t…even though at this late date they might really believe they were because they heard about this party so often.
**Iggy **was arguing that the FBI’s investigation of Anita Hill’s allegations was somehow totally different because Ms. Hill was a federal employee, and the FBI is not allowed to investigate Dr. Blasey’s allegations because there is no nexus to a federal crime.
I was simply pointing out that in addition to there being no requirement of a federal nexus (crime or otherwise), it is also not the case that sexual harassment is a federal crime.
There’s a chance that a full investigation wouldn’t find anything out. But there’s a chance that they could. Considering the significance of a lifetime appt to SCOTUS, and considering how awfully our society treats sexual assault and rape, I think it’s a very easy call that such credible allegations (like this one) must be fully investigated prior to confirming the nominee.
If you’re right, then the worst thing that could happen is a delay. If you’re wrong, the the worst thing that could happen is that, due to a failure to investigate, an attempted rapist who lies about it might end up on the SCOTUS.
The answer to that question is explored in this Pit thread: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=846268&page=11
I can’t see how a full investigation could possibly find anything at this stage, other than conflicting testimony. Like I said, I’m unsure how they would even determine who could legitimately be questioned based on who might or might not have been at the party at this stage. Unless there is some smoking gun with forensic evidence that’s been hidden then to me I don’t see what an investigation could possibly uncover. This is something that should have been reported immediately. We know that even THEN a lot of these cases fell through the cracks, but at least there would be the report and something to work with. Presumably someone would have at least taken down some names of folks who were there that could be used. Now? 36 years later? I’m curious what you genuinely think could be found at this point. 
Through her lawyer, Blasey-Ford tells Republicans in the Senate that she is willing to testify next week under “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety”. And her lawyer requests that she’d like to set up a call with Republicans later today to discuss the conditions under which she would be prepared to testify.
Are you a law enforcement/sexual assault investigation professional? If not, why would your feelings be helpful on this? There are lots of experts who have come forward in various media saying that it is indeed possible that investigators could shed more light on the facts of these allegations if they had the time and resources. Stranger things have happened then facts discovered about an incident a few decades old.
Nope. I’m neither nor have I ever claimed to be. I suppose my feelings on this aren’t helpful in that case.
Shodan said that Feinstein sat on the allegation until it was “too late.” I simply asked “too late for what?”
And I’m not an investigator, so asking me how or what the FBI investigates in regard to anything is not going to yield you anything substantial. But knowing they’re the trained investigators, I have faith that they can at least produce some facts around the allegation that a bunch of politically-motivated grandstanding Senators can’t.
Regardless of how Feinstein handled this, there’s no timeline set in stone here, so I don’t see how this is “too late” for the FBI to look into it further, as a matter of digging deeper into the nominee’s background, specifically around a red flag that involves a potential sexual assault.
It’s more appropriate to think of the FBI in this context as a third party contractor you hire to do background checks on your potential employees. Here, the employer is the Executive (President picks SC nominee) and the employee is Kavanaugh.
The FBI is not investigating a crime on its own. However, if requested by the President, the FBI would (and has) provide the service of a background check.
Here, new information has come to light, so the President could ask the FBI to look into it and update the background check they’ve already done. The FBI would not initiate looking into this new claim on their own (just like any background check company would not initiate looking into an employee’s background on their own). The FBI would then give their findings to the President. The President could hand that over to the Senate for them to review for advice/consent/vote on the nominee.
Or, like Richard Parker said…