The only side dealing in innuendo is the Kavanaugh side.
The Ford side, on the other hand, is calling for investigation.
‘No rape kit = Nothing to investigate’ is not a tenable position.
That’s just silly. Of course there could be an investigation. You would start with interviewing Ford to get a list of the people se things should in turn be interviewed, including the folks she has already named. You could talk to Ford’s therapists and husband. The investigation would be a fact-finding effort and then it would be up to the Senate Judiciary Committee to pass judgement on what those facts tell us.
It would actually be trivial to at least interview every person who has been named so far-- Ford, Kavanaugh, Judge, Ford’s husband, Ford’s two therapists, and possibly one or two others who were alleged to be at the party (maybe this guy PJ What’s-his-name). Those interviews might lead to other people to be interviewed. If you really wanted to, you could interview everyone who was in Kavanaugh’s class in highs school and everyone in Ford’s class, too. That might be a bit more difficult, but not terribly so. Even if you only got a 50% hit rate with those people, that would still be a good cross-section of folks who might have some information.
I doubt there would be a useful criminal investigation, but that’s another matter.
And that’s just incorrect. Base it on Ford’s statement and go from there. Investigators do that kind of thing every single day. And they even do it on cases decades old occasionally.
Since none of the people mentioned were there to witness it then it’s no different than interviewing the people on this thread who read about it.
No it’s not another matter. He’s being accused of something without evidence. That’s a big damn matter. Only instead of a court case he’s getting judged on the internet.
Of course there is no truth to this claim.
Fellow-students of Kavanaugh and of Ford can tell investigators what they remember noticing at the time and what others were saying at the time. Even more importantly, they can describe the parties they themselves attended and offer information that could help narrow down the time and place. And they can offer names of other people who may have further information.
Again: Ford is not calling for Kavanaugh to be judged on the internet. Ford is calling for actual investigation.
You’d think Kavanaugh would want a non-partisan investigation to be performed. You know, to clear his name. But apparently he doesn’t believe that investigation would clear his name.
If Kavanaugh is innocent, then without an actual investigation, prejudging and internet condemnation are a lot more likely. If he’s guilty, then the best he can hope for is prejudging and internet condemnation, since an actual investigation will just make him look worse.
So if he’s innocent, he’d want a full investigation. If not, he would not.
If he doesn’t remember because he drank too much as a teenager, then who knows? But in that case, someone with a high level of honesty and integrity would come forward and explain themselves – they’d say “I don’t remember any behavior like that, but I was a heavy drinker and I did black out multiple times, so I don’t know with certainty”.
Yes, not having any evidence is not a tenable position when making accusations. Pretend someone from another HS shows up at your office and claimed your bodies were close together while wrestling at a party 36 years ago.
We’ll, A story was told in the past. It’s hard to say if it was this same story, a different version, or a different story altogether.
He agreed to testify before the committee. She has waffled on this for days claiming she’s afraid of flying and can’t be bothered with questions from lawyers. :rolleyes:
She’s always been free to have it investigated.
A very friendly committee with a majority that wants to make it as easy as possible. That doesn’t mean a damn thing. Ford agreed (apparently, based on the latest reports) to testify to a hostile committee that would prefer if she had never come forward. And unlike Kavanaugh, she’s calling for a full investigation.
You’re arguing that an investigation is unlikely to turn up anything new. That may or may not be true, but that doesn’t preclude an investigation from being done. People who were supposed to be at this alleged party have information that you or I can’t possibly have. It may very well be “I don’t remember the party”, but that is information and it’s different to tell that to someone from the FBI than telling some reporter on CNN (or whatever).
He’s being accused of something with very little evidence, not “no evidence”, and the reason there isn’t any more evidence is because there has been no investigation. Even a whole list of of folks saying “never heard of this party, never heard of the alleged assault” is information.
That’s a false dichotomy.
This is a pretty empty threat. If they actually had the votes, they would be voting on Monday.
They probably do have the votes. From the Republican side the only question is whether allowing the accusations to go on or summarily cutting them off looks the worst.
They might get the votes at some point, but I think that if they had the votes right now, they would be voting.
Non-partisan is expecting a lot in this climate. Whether Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty, it’s blatantly clear that the Democrats desperately wanted something, anything they could dig up that would derail his confirmation; simply because he’s a conservative and even worse, Trump’s choice.
No the argument is that this would not be investigated by police because there is nothing to base an investigation on.
Virtually every person’s political/legal career could be buried by an accusation.
Oh, she’s reported it to the police now? Cite?
Look, the FBI are not going to do anything that you would consider a “full investigation”. They wouldn’t no matter who was President, as it doesn’t fall within their jurisdiction. Frankly, it’s disturbing and more than a little hypocritical for all the liberals here to say they want the FBI to overstep their jurisdiction and investigate things that don’t concern them.
A further background check? Maybe, if there’s really a belief that Kavanaugh hid being a sexual predator from the previous 6 such investigations. The FBI investigating unsupported allegations of a decades-old misdemeanor, past the statute of limitations? No, utterly unacceptable.
I misspoke when I said same school; I meant same social circle.
But again, it’s a very simple thing to establish whether they knew each other back then. Ford obviously says they did and Kavanaugh hasn’t denied that.. You don’t even need a investigation to answer this question. Just ask them that outright.
Witness testimony would suffice. If mutual friends hosted parties and specifically remembered inviting and/or seeing Ford and Kav there, their statements would be entered into a formal record. Exhibit A, if you will.
I’m willing to bet that among all these rich, materially-blessed kids in Kav’s social circle, there were at least a handful with polaroid cameras they used to create such things us old folks call photo albums. Wouldn’t take much work for an investigator to obtain one of these albums and determine if any showed Ford and Kav interacting with one another. If Ford didn’t keep such photos, perhaps one of her buddies did.
Doesn’t matter. These people were socializing with each other outside of school. Most teenagers don’t limit their social group to just their schoolmates; those who attend non-coed schools have an even greater incentive to fraternize externally.
Wow, you are pretty stuck on this “written record” thing. I guess if I break into my neighbor’s house and steal their TV, I’m in the clear because there won’t be any written records placing me in the house at any time, ever. Never mind the witnesses who say they saw someone who looked like me crawling through the basement window. Never mind the surveillance video from the convenience store across the street that captured my license plate moments before the break in occurred. Without that “written record”, cops can’t touch me, yo!
You need an investigation to establish whether there were witnesses. Someone objective who can fact-find and follow the clues where they lead may uncover witnesses that even the accusers don’t know exist.
Dude, what kind of lawyer are you if you don’t know this?
They can ascertain whether anyone in the Kav-Ford social circle had heard of an incident between the two during the summer of 82.
They can interview these people and find out what they knew about the incident at the time.
They can try to determine when the party in question occurred by interviewing those closest to Ford that summer. (We have no reason to believe she can’t remember the names of the female guests who attended; they may remember specifics that she doesn’t.)
An investigator can also look to see if other relevant history from that time establish character issues for either Ford or Kavanaugh. For instance, did Ford have a reputation for lying? Did Kav (and Judge) pull this kind of “stunt” on anyone else before?
It’s crazy to think there was nothing useful that could turn up in an investigation.
No, that argument had nothing to do with the police. I already said I doubted a criminal investigation would happen.