The FBI was responsible for conducting Kavanaugh’s background check and so must also investigate this allegation. A fact that has been widely reported in a number of articles.
Which is how all Supreme Court nominations have worked for decades—also a fact widely known to people who consume lamestream media.
Which isn’t to say Sessions won’t change things this time. But the precedent is for FBI to investigate nominees and update the investigations.
Another possible piece of info we could learn from the hearings next week – Mark Judge (the alleged accomplice to the assault) might get called to testify (I’m sure the Republicans would like to avoid this, but after the start of the testimony they may have no choice – if Ford says “please call Mark Judge to testify”, it would be pretty hard for the Senate to ignore her). Under oath, he may not back up Kavanaugh’s own testimony. He might answer honestly about their drinking habits, even if he claims no recollection of this particular incident.
I suspect the drinking habits of both Ford and Kavanaugh will come under scrutiny, in the Committee hearings and outside of it. We already know about Judge. It won’t be good for ether one of them if it’s reported that they regularly drank in high school. Things I really want to know:
- Does Kavanaugh recall even knowing Ford in high school, or being at any parties with her, especially a small gathering as described.
- Can Ford clarify when the alleged assault occurred-- the notes from her individual therapy session say it was when she was in her late teens. That puts the possible dates as 1982 - 1984, and possibly later.
- Does Ford know who the other people were at the party, and what do they say about the events in question
- Does Judge recall the party in question or some party that fits the general description
- Are there any other women coming forward who were assaulted by Kavanaugh
- How confident is Ford that Kavanaugh was her assailant.
- How confident is Kavanaugh that he did not have some sort of physical interaction with Ford during the times in question. Or did some interaction occur?
I’m sure more questions will arise as the whole thing plays out over the next week or so.
Those are reasonable and worthy questions. No doubt, several of the questions asked will share those qualities.
Must? They already declined once.
If we’re lucky, at least 10% will.
Did they know the name of the accuser then? If not, that would be a significant difference now.
I think they did, but admit uncertainty on this point. Feinstein said she forwarded “the letter” to FBI investigators. I assume that’s the letter signed by the accuser. I suppose it’s possible that she sent the FBI a redacted copy, excluding the name of the accuser, but that would seem like a right stupid thing to do if she wanted the FBI to take it seriously (which one might plausibly argue she may not have wanted).
True. A job interview where you answer your questions under oath.
In the retraction they apologized for any embarrassment and said the only reason they kept the page up was so people could see the retraction. But they also left the text of the original story up (in a strike-through font) so all the false information they sincerely regret running… can still be read. 
:dubious:
*“When you take the devil into your mouth, you’re doomed! For he is lying there in wait for you inside that bottle of whiskey. Waiting for you to take him into your mouth. Waiting to get down into your guts where he can do his devil’s work. Liquor is the most foul, evil thing in this here world. It destroyed good men like myself. It’ll destroy you too. Beer is not much better - it’s slower, cheaper. But it could well prevent you from being nominated to the Supreme Court. So take these words of advice. And remember, you heard them from a poor sinner, got no more cause to lie, 'cause he’s going to meet his Maker. Now he’s ready. Well that’s all I’ve got to say.” *
Hang Em High - 1968
Well, most of it.
John Mace has asked whether we are really sure that Dr. Ford identified the right guy. FBI questioning should clarify that.
Sandra Newman, an author who has written about false rape accusations before, says this doesn’t match the typical profile of a false accusation. [INDENT]False accusations tend to paint the attacker as extraordinarily evil and deliberately cruel, not as a kid who is doing something really awful and stupid while black-out drunk. [/INDENT] There’s more at the link.
On whether Kavanaugh will fail to be confirmed by the end of October, PredictIt (betting market) has moved to 56%. A few days ago, it was under 10%. The bettors now think this nomination is in significant jeopardy.
It seems like the GOP talking point is that this really happened to her but that because of the passage of time she has confused Kavanaugh with another preppy boy that went to one of the private high schools near her house.
Nobody is attacking her and they are handling her with kid gloves. Hell, they even have Trump under control and off Twitter! A commenter was on last night and said that in 2018 with the #metoo culture, there cannot be a harsh cross-examination of her like Arlen Specter with Anita Hill. They will be handling her with kid gloves.
Two takeaways from this:
-
The FBI isn’t going to investigate this. It’s strictly up to the committee.
-
Some posters have repeatedly referred to Kavanaugh having been exhaustively investigated by the FBI several times already. If the DOJ is stating the goals of those FBI investigations correctly, that doesn’t really mean a hell of a lot. He’s not going to leak secrets to the Russians, he’s got a clean criminal record, and they didn’t turn up anything that indicated that he was susceptible to blackmail. Sounds like roughly the same screening that any Federal worker undergoes.
Passing a screening such as that may be a necessary condition for a potential Justice, but it’s so far short of sufficient that it’s hardly worth bringing up.
confirm him and GOP lose women’s votes , find someone else and that does not happen. Seems like a simple choice
I’m actually more interested in why so many Republicans, including multiple Dopers (!), are satisfied with that, and even contemptuous of those who insist we do need to know. It’s not the way responsible citizens act; it’s the way loyal subjects act. That’s two and a half centuries of blood and toil wasted. It’s disheartening.
:dubious:
You have to be extremely naive to think that Kavanaugh (or Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomeyer etc) did not undergo a screening much much much more extensive and deeper than that of a guy who is an accountant in the Dept of Agriculture. Kavanaugh has been in important positions the better part of two decades, there are probablyt files (plural) on him. In such cases, the FBI is probably the point of contact, no doubt other agencies are also involved.
What is most eye opening is that the parties are behaving the opposite of what you expect. The Democrats seem to want this to be done by the FBI (i.e out of the public eye) while the Republicans have delayed the vote and gone for public hearings.
The difference is impartiality and thoroughness vs. cherry-picking and theatrics.