Yeah, I didn’t think so.
As demonstrated by sending the letter? :dubious:
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Sen. Feinstein said. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision
I think the normal way to read that would be “declined to press the matter further than she already had by sending Feinstein the letter”.
I, too, did a 
on reading that. But who knows? Maybe Kavanaugh did something in High School that disqualifies him from being on the SCOTUS. We may even find out, but we may not.
That’s an odd definition of normal. But you’re welcome to it.
Isn’t she supposed to? Or is she entitled to make a decision on her own as to whether or not the FBI should be advised? Seems to me, that would not be a matter for her discretion.
The woman sent the letter. We know that. The woman then said she didn’t want to press the matter further.
Yes, the way I’m reading it is normal. It’s possible that Feinstein misspoke, but taking her at her word, that’s how it would be read.
Oh, please. Do you think she wanted to bring it up publicly or didn’t she? Obviously she did.
I’m not trying to read the woman’s her mind. I’m only reading what Feinstein wrote. If you don’t want to believe Feinstein, that’s your prerogative. Like I said, it’s possible she misspoke.
The article said
So someone at Stanford sent it, about someone else. So it isn’t clear if the letter writer didn’t want to pursue it, or the person who is the subject of the letter didn’t want to pursue it. I think the second is more likely - someone Kavanaugh dated in high school told someone else in college that she (or perhaps he) had sex in high school (horrors) when he was 18 and she was 16, or he sexually harassed her, or kidnapped her and subjected her to ritual Satanic abuse.
Regards,
Shodan
You have, and have declared it Normal.
Reddit and twitter rumors are that Kavanuagh violated someone’s consent in high school, and that the baseball-tickets thing were actually a scheme to hide large payoffs to persuade the victim from coming forward with her story. Just rumors for now; hopefully if there was any law breaking or shady behavior, it will come out before any final vote.
did anyone ask him for docs that show he bought all those baseball tickets? If so he should be able to find some documentation or the team could still have records.
The *best *people.
I think he’s about to be #metoo’d. What else could it be?
It would appear that what she wanted was to have Dianne Feinstein bring it up publicly and have her name left out of it. Doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to me.
From high school?
it seems for a lot of people bringing up where you were born is a good issue . I believe some orange guy kept bringing that up with regards to Obama.
Yeah…I won’t say there’s* nothing* someone could do in high school that would disqualify them from a SCOTUS seat several decades later, but it would have to be pretty extreme.
Yes. Everything that Feinstein said seemed to be talking about “the individual” who wrote the letter, not the the woman of interest. The woman who wrote the letter said she didn’t want to pursue it further, and yet Feinstein referred it to the “federal investigative authorities”. We can argue about whether that was the right thing to do or not, but it doesn’t sounds like it’s honoring her wishes.
If there is anything here, we’ll find out soon enough.
It would be nice to have the latter kind from Trump, but since it hasn’t and won’t happen, I’d like a pony at the same time.
But to get back to the actual matter we were discussing (nice try at dodgeball), we seem to agree that it is inevitable that a Justice must sometimes rely on wisdom and judgment derived from life experiences to decide between multiple alternatives that are consistent with the law and the facts.
Therefore the Senate has need to evaluate nominees on those attributes, and take into consideration the life experiences they flow from.
After all, if I’m interviewing someone for a position in my branch, I’m going to query them on their experience that bears on all of the various parts of the job that they will necessarily encounter. I expect the Senate to do the same with judicial nominees.