smoking pot knocked out Ginsberg but that was in the 80s. Probably would not be an issue now unless there was a lot of pot smoking.
He paid off someone using a credit card? If he did, he definitely does’t belong on the Supreme Court.
Bijou: Obama admitted to using cocaine in HS, as well as being in a pot smoking club. I’m think we’re well past that sort of thing.
The FBI has declined to investigate this due to the time lapse since the incident allegedly happened.
I assume it was referred to the FBI since they’re responsible for doing the background checks on nominees, beyond just criminal stuff.
Anyways, if the Guardian has it right, it’s not really overwhelming.
For those of you interested, here is a video of her speech.
Well, that and it not being a federal crime, I imagine.
Grassley postponed the committee vote for a week. The reason can’t be auspicious for the nomination - either it’s to look into this, or his finances, or to strong-arm a wavering Gopper or two, or something else not yet leaked. No, scratch that last, it’s Washington, where there is nothing that isn’t leaked.
The other part is that the writer of the letter allegedly wasn’t the person to whom Kavanaugh did or didn’t do whatever he is alleged to have done or not done. There doesn’t seem to be any reference to that person’s wishes for confidentiality. Only the wish of the writer of the letter not to pursue it.
Call the writer of the letter A, and the person who was allegedly the subject of whatever Kavanaugh is accused of doing B. I can think of reasons why B would not want it pursued, some innocent and some not. I can also think of reasons why A would not want it pursued - but a desire by B for anonymity isn’t one of them. If B wanted to drop it, A would not have written the letter.
Another reason that A would not want the matter pursued might be that B doesn’t exist, or hasn’t accused Kavanaugh of anything, or what B said about Kavanaugh is trivial. And A would not want that pursued because investigation would cause the whole thing to fall apart.
I don’t know if Feinstein knows or not. I suspect, on some level, she doesn’t care. Throw out the smear. If nothing comes of it, some people will believe it no matter what, especially in today’s #metoo atmosphere. Maybe Feinstein can delay the vote, or re-open the hearings as they did with Thomas. At least she can send out the signal to future nominees “Be prepared to be smeared. We’ll find something. If we can’t find something, we will use anonymous accusations at second- or third-hand.”
Unless the Dems take back the Senate, of course. Then such tactics will be beyond the pale.
Regards,
Shodan
Your concern with this allegation is *not *about its truth or accuracy, but over its existence. Is that supposed to be a respectable position to take?
The vote was always going to be on the 20th. Grassley scheduled it for the 13th knowing that any committee member can request a week delay and that the Dems certainly would. That happened, not because of Feinstein’s letter, but because the Dems feel pressure from their base to use every tool at their disposal to delay Kavanaugh.
Whatever it was, I could understand Feinstein seemingly ignoring the wishes of the letter writer under certain circumstances. If it was significant information, tell the letter writer “Sory, but you should not have given this to me if you didn’t want me to do anything with it”. But since we’re talking about something that happened over 30 years ago when Kavanaugh was in High School, it would have to be very, very serious to do anything other than tell the letter writer: "Thanks for the input, and I will honor your wish not to pursue this any further. Remember to vote in November. "
I think Feinstein’s was probably hoping the FBI would play along with her “I’ve referred the matter to federal investigative authorities” joke a bit longer than they did.
“While the Bureau cannot comment on specifics, we are investigating an incident involving Kavanaugh’s conspiracy to commit kidnapping and unlawful restraint of a minor female.”
Like that.
As I wrote in another thread, my best guess (at this time) is that Feinstein meant well but is under enormous pressure.
She probably recognized that the info she had was insignificant, and combined with the purported victim’s desire for no action, she would have suppressed the matter entirely. But once word got out about it, her hand was forced. At that point, if she continued to do nothing, she (already subjected to a primary from a progressive candidate) would have been accused of being part of a cover up and insufficiently dedicated to The Cause. So she had to be seen as “doing something”, and by referring it to the FBI she accomplished that. I would guess she knew full well that nothing would come of the FBI referral, but at that point she would be seen as having done her part in the Great Struggle.
In sum, the old story of fanatic extremists pressuring the more rational politicians. You see it on both the left and the right.
Is that her call to make? Can she decide that, can she decide that this wasn’t worth much, so no problem if she doesn’t tell the FBI? I would have thought that was the FBI’s decision to make.
That is the important thing to remember here, that both sides do it. Good catch, there, FP!
Really? Refer every accusation to the FBI without putting any thought into it? I disagree. Feinstein is a seasoned pol who has been in government longer than a lot of us have been alive (not you and me, but others reading this). If all she does is act as a letter carrier then she’s not doing her job. Unless Senate or Committee rules require her to pass on any and all information like this. If that’s the case, then so be it. If not, she should use some judgement.
Republicans afraid of challenges from the right attract an enormous amount of attention on this MB. Lately that phenomenon has been occurring more on the left as well - possibly including Sen Feinstein - and it’s worth noting that it’s part of a broader phenomenon.
Oh, OK. So, if you have some evidence that falls under the FBI’s bailiwick, and you privately make a judgement about its significance, there is no legal problem with that? No way do they come around and ask “Hey, shouldn’t you have told us?”.
See, I don’t have you depth of expertise in this sort of thing, so I have to ask.
What is the legal problem? You and I both know a lot of folks who use and/or sell drugs*. I’ve not turned any in to the FBI. How many of those people have you turned over to the FBI, and how much legal jeopardy are we in for not dong so?
See above. I think you do.
*We don’t do any of this ourselves, of course, but we know “other people” who do.