Even if the allegations are absolutely true, why would the FBI do anything? Since when does the FBI investigate teenagers for non-penetrative sex crimes? Especially from 1982. It’s not that slow down at the Bureau.
This isn’t a trial. It’s a job interview.
You should find it troubling that you don’t know the answer to this obvious question.
It would have been less credible due to less corroborating evidence – “credible” vs “not credible” is in the eye of the beholder. I would have still supported it being fully investigated by the committee in charge.
So the Senate should investigate. Look for other witnesses/party attendees. Ask the accuser and alleged assaulters questions. And much more.
The point is that her accusation was documented when Kavanaugh was a relative nobody. If she’d only made an accusation once he became a household name, I’d join you in being skeptical, because that does seem opportunistic.
If she were currently making an accusation against a random judge, it wouldn’t be national news and I’d still be inclined to believe her. That’s essentially what she did with her therapist.
From the letter: “We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story. It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.”
Yes, but all are expressing their desire that they believe this should be investigated. You do not think it should, and are expressing that here. I assume you don’t have a problem with them doing this, do you?
The part I was quibbling with was where you wrote “… Feinstein, who gave it to the WH, who [did the right thing] and included it in the nomination package, where other senate Democrats got hold of it …”. AFAICT, none of this is correct.
I’m not sure the term “partisan” is correct here in that it has the connotation of “electing more Republicans”, versus making sure that the right type of SC Justice is confirmed. (You could of make the argument that electing more Republicans (or Democrats) is also a valid concern - and it is - but it’s not the role of Senators acting in an official capacity, while involvement in the SC confirmation process is.)
But that aside, it goes back to the question of how much light would be shed by the “investigation”. My point has been that it’s extremely unlikely that much if any will be shed. You’ve said there’s a “non-zero” chance that some would be. But a non-zero chance doesn’t stack up as high against other considerations as a legitimate chance would.
None of this is correct, from what I’ve seen. Reporting I’ve seen is that when she first mentioned it to her therapist she expressed concern that Kavanagh might get onto the SC. And while she didn’t go to TMZ with it, she sent it to her rep with the specific intention that it influence the confirmation process.
That aside, most of the “frame job” commentary I’ve seen has been about the Democrats using a shaky accusation to frame Kavanagh, not about the accuser herself having this motivation.
So should the Senate investigate my hypothetical allegation?
If you can show that you attended that conference (plane tickets, hotel reservation receipts, attendance lists, photographs), and Kavanaugh did as well, then absolutely.
That’s what the media was reporting early on, but it seems it was incorrect. Here’s a link to the text of the letter to Feinstein, in which she references having herself previously contacted her local rep.
Yes, I saw that. I don’t think we are in disagreement.
But I thought it was originally claimed (by Feinstein?) that the writer of the letter was not the subject of the letter. Have we now found out that Ford wrote the letter herself? If that’s true, I don’t know that it helps her credibility or not - probably not.
Apparently the incident was bad enough to disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court, but not bad enough to disqualify him from being a federal appeals court judge. Hm.
That’s true. “Do you have an alibi for the period between January 1 1981 and October 31 1983?” is kind of a tricky question to answer.
Regards,
Shodan
Why do I need to show all of that? She has no proof they were at the same house.
Plus, why would I save all of these receipts from 2003? Or maybe it was 2004. I have tried to block it out of my mind. Why are you blaming the victim?
You’re right, the FBI gave it to the white house, who passed it to the senate.
It was after Feinstein started dropping hints, but before any details came out.
Thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
We know they both went to school in the same area at the same time, and no one is denying that. An analogous scenario would be Kavanaugh admits he was at the conference (or a nearby event) at the time in question, and no one denies you were there (or nearby) at around the same time as well.
EDIT: If all you’re interested in is silliness, carry on on your own, but the hypothetical you brought up was interesting and has been answered reasonably.
Yet, indictments for sexual assault are brought in my state all of the time with such ridiculous broad date ranges because “time is not an element” of sexual assault.
So only accusers that live nearby their rapist are protected? A rapist can rape with impunity while traveling because the quantum of proof may not be there?
Plus, the time frame is not definite, nor is it required to be. If I say it happened in Baltimore, Kavanaugh cannot prove he wasn’t there in a three year period, nor can it be proven that I wasn’t.
I thought we took EVERY allegation seriously?
No idea what you’re going on about here. I can’t follow at all, and I no longer find this silliness interesting.
Thankfully, the Senate is going to investigate this credible allegation. We’ll see in the coming weeks what this investigation reveals.
In other words, you got nothing.
You would dismiss my hypothetical allegation because I have no plane tickets or hotel receipts, but believe that everyone else should be believed.
I never said I’d dismiss anything, nor did I say that everyone (or anyone) should be believed. No idea what you’re talking about, but it’s not about my posts. Thankfully, the Senate is going to investigate this credible allegation, and we’ll see in the coming weeks what the investigation reveals.