That you remember. 
I have blacked-out, I’ll admit it. So, you could be right!
Do we have a “tell us about your black-out experience” thread in MPSIMS yet? I’m afraid to look…
At this point, Mark Judge’s confirmation of the events is the only thing which will get the R’s to vote against Kavanaugh. Anything less than that allows them to go with the “insufficient corroborating” defense and vote him through. Even if someone comes up with a photo of everyone on that house at that day, it is still not proof that the attack happened. Without the certainty of the attack, it gives the R’s enough wiggle room vote yes.
If the feds don’t investigate Swetnick’s accusation, this makes it likely that Avenatti will use the media to run with it. And then the WH will have zero control over what is revealed and the conclusions that follow from it.
I see this backfiring on the Republicans big time, but I dunno.
They also aren’t allowed to inquire about Mark Judge’s employment or any aspects of Kavanaugh’s obvious drinking problem. So, not even a legitimate investigation into the other claims.
I’m not concerned about the outcome.
But yea, in this context, the FBI is the client of the WH and the WH can tell them to do what they want (in a way that would be wholly inappropriate in a criminal investigation). But Trump using the FBI’s good name (ha) to legitimize the nominee as having gone through a proper investigation into these allegations won’t ring true to many people.
It’s still better than nothing, but nothing is a seriously low bar.
As I understand it, a hallmark of the FBI’s methods is to interview one person, obtain names from that person of others who might have information on the topic of interest, and then go interview those people. And so on.
If it’s true that Trump is saying ‘you may not interview anyone at all who is not on this list,’ then the investigation is illegitimate on its face.
Most Americans other than the 30-40% of hardcore white-supremacist/Trump fans will see this as a cover-up. And Senators who vote to support a cover-up* may find their re-election chances affected by their choice.
*By that I mean ‘vote to confirm Kavanaugh even though the ‘investigation’ was clearly a sham.’ I’m not claiming that there is a vote scheduled on approval/disapproval of cover-ups as such.
The tell was that he blew it up into a tantrum, as if he was just this far from losing it.
I imagine the scotus are looking at this guy and saying WTF. I bet they don’t want the hassle.
A report I read said Manchin will vote how Collins and Murkowski vote. He’s covering his ass.
The idea of the WH limiting who the FBI is allowed to talk to is so utterly bizarre, even for these morons, that I’d like to wait for further corroboration from multiple sources before believing it to be fully accurate. If true, it completely invalidates the investigation!
Sure, the WH is entitled to direct the FBI as to the purpose of the investigation and the questions they want answered. But telling them who they may or may not talk to or the areas allowed for discussion is no less egregious than prejudging the case and dictating the intended outcome! If there is any concern about Kavanaugh’s privacy rights, the goddam report is given to the president in confidence and can be suitably redacted when made public.
There is no possible rational justification for hamstringing the investigation except to bias the odds toward the desired outcome.
Isn’t Judge in the position to confirm the perjury already committed by k on Thursday was perjury?
Thursday was a disaster, and no one seems to be considering that.
This thing could get very messy.
Actually, I think the bigger problem is not that they leave out the claims of one of the accusers, but this part from the article:
The FBI must have freedom to investigate not only the claims of sexual assault but also whether Kavanaugh has made false statements under oath about his past…because these are the things that can likely be determined with more certainty. If it is limited to simply investigating the sexual assault claims themselves, we already know what the conclusion is very likely to be: It is hard to ascertain if they are true or false.
I think much more damning is the fact that Kavanaugh made a number of statements that, while probably not absolutely provable as falsehoods, can be shown to be ridiculously unlikely and contradicted by his contemporaries. (I would even go so far as to say “false beyond a reasonable doubt”.)
Then, the question becomes why he is lying…And, of course, the only reasonable answer is that he is lying because he knows that the truth would make the sexual assault claims much more credible. And, even if he doesn’t have any recollection of these assaults (which is certainly possible), I think he recognizes that the truth about his drinking habits and attitudes and behavior toward women make it entirely plausible that he committed them. Hence, it is necessary to lie.
Kavanaugh lied about getting into Yale on his own hard work. He was a legacy. His grandfather went to Yale.
I would argue the why doesn’t even matter. He lied under oath. His classmates have already disputed his explanation of the girl they humiliated in their yearbook, and it shouldn’t be too hard to have a few of them say that “ralphing” wasn’t about his aversion to spicy food, because obviously it wasn’t. So, he perjured himself. Why do we even have to go any further than that?
Yeah…You have a point. I guess the lying itself should be disqualifying…However, the fact that he finds it necessary to lie on these little points is kind of the icing on the cake.
All of that is semantic issues that can be easily discounted. Even if everyone else meant throwing up from drinking, he could always say that he’s shocked that’s what they meant, as he always thought it was because of his weak stomach. Even if everyone else meant boof=sex, he could say he meant fart. There’s no way to prove those were lies that would rise to the level of perjury. Even the stuff about blacking out can be explained away as “How would I remember I blacked out? When you’re blacked out, you don’t retain memories. I’m shocked to find out I really did black out!”
Unless there’s a “blue dress” kind of evidence like in Clinton’s case that can prove he’s lying, all the stuff he lied about won’t matter in terms of his confirmation.
So, he’s either lying, or stupid.
Either should be disqualifying for the highest court in the land.
By the way, turns out he also lied about his credentials. He said he got into Yale with no connections (“I have no connections there. I got there by busting my tail.").
He’s a legacy. His grandfather went there.
A Yale educated man with a employment history in law. Why didn’t he know how to testify better? I am telling you he was on something. A little liquid courage. Or an injection from his doctor, to calm him. He was out of control.
I just don’t see that kind of lying as unimportant. I cannot imagine having a scotus justice who lied so brazenly. The contempt in those lies was screaming out: “I don’t care about your justice!” If he says he meant “other things” I can’t see that flying.
Did no one else think he was giving up on confirmation when he went off on those tantrums? The guy knows better. He was virtue signalling to bad people. He cannot have given that testimony and expected to stay in there. The fact that he is is just more insanity, that I don’t think he expected.