I did miss that fact: apparently Dr. Ford reported the incident to a WAPO tip line in early July and wrote her Senator in late July. I stand by the remainder of the sentence though: she shouldn’t be forced to testify, but if she doesn’t cooperate with the investigation her claims should be deweighted. She seems to be cooperating though: it is the Republican regime which is resisting a full and fair investigation.
That’s my take as well. I trust FBI background investigations review a range of behavior. When they ask about illegal drug use, I doubt whether they emphasize a disinterest in state law.
The reason the FBI won’t investigate is because their background investigation was previously closed before these allegations arose, and it requires an order from the White House to reopen it. Something that is… not forthcoming.
Huh. I would have thought Judge Kavanaugh would welcome an opportunity to remove any besmirch to his name via an impartial investigation. I guess he prefers the shadow of attempted rape to haunt the entirety of his time on SCOTUS.
I note Dr. Ford appears to have no fears about what may be learned through an investigation.
You keep saying the FBI only investigates federal crimes. That is incorrect. The FBI has routinely investigated SCOTUS nominees, including all kinds of things that are not crimes and including updating when new information comes to light. If they choose not to do so now, that is a political decision. Please get your facts straight.
I got that. But federal and state law varies on the subject: you can be tried for both, right? Drug Crimes: A Look at Federal and State Laws - Drug Rehab Options [INDENT]Though there is a longstanding federal strategy in place to combat the abuse and distribution of controlled substances, each state also has its own set of drug laws. One key difference between the two is that while the majority of federal drug convictions are obtained for trafficking, the majority of local and state arrests are made on charges of possession. [/INDENT]
At any rate, my assertion that conservatives oppose a full and fair investigation of these charges is strengthened in this thread. If Kavanaugh is innocent, this doesn’t help his reputation, but that doesn’t matter to them.
The FBI updated his file with the letter containing her allegations, and considers the matter closed. Their background checks on Supreme Court nominees are to determine threats to national security, which this wouldn’t really qualify as one.
It isn’t up to the FBI to “consider the matter closed.” They had concluded their background investigation and now require direction from the White House to reopen it. That’s all it would take.
You need only cast your mind back to the days of Rob Porter and the additional investigation made into his background after allegations surfaced about wife-beating to know what you say is incorrect. And while Porter’s position was an important one, it is not as important as determining the integrity of a Supreme Court justice.
I think the point escaped you. If Feinstein wanted an investigation to be carried out “before there was a hearing”, she should have shared the letter with the FBI before the hearing was scheduled to begin. She waited until after.
The FBI couldn’t investigate because there was no Federal crime involved before the hearings began. After the hearings began, the situation was totally different! The hearings began, and then there was a Federal crime!
She does’t have “authority to order the FBI” (and I never claimed she did), but she was the one withholding the only piece of information we’re aware of that might have prompted an additional investigation. Turns out it probably wouldn’t have anyways, but it’s more than a bit crass to say “I wanted you to investigate this weeks ago” when you didn’t report it until six days ago.
Feinstein withheld the letter at the request of the alleged victim, who hoped that Kavanaugh would be otherwise disqualified so she (the alleged victim) would not have to suffer the nasty disruption to her life that she’s now enduring. That’s not unreasonable, and Feinstein had an ethical obligation to honor Ford’s wishes. Ford is understandably very torn about subjecting herself to this ugly partisan “process.” She’s asking for an impartial investigation to determine the truth. You seem to think that’s unreasonable.
The only real question here is who is telling the truth. The matter should be investigated, and those with the authority to order such an investigation should order it.
In the video in your link at 1:06 the Kav supporter says “We have to get all of the facts” then backs up all over herself realizing she fucked up. It’s like she accidentally read the Democratic talking points cue card, not the GOP one.
Honestly an incident from 30 years ago as a drunk teen, with no pattern of sexual abuse of power, assault, or harassment reports since (barring people coming out of the woodwork now that it is public as seems to sometimes happen)? I’d be thinking he should be disqualified for other reasons but not that.
But I do not think she is misremembering that a drunk Kavanaugh pinned her down, tried to tear her clothes off, and covered her mouth to prevent her from screaming. Nor do I think she planned this years in advance and told a therapist about it ahead of time just to be ready for a lie now. It happened. And no matter how drunk I do not think that he is honestly forgetting that it happened.
He was, shall we say, less than completely truthful, when on the stand already. He is outright lying now (and it is telling that his friend and egger on is refusing to state under oath that it never happened). That completely disqualifies him.
I don’t get the benefit of having counsel ask the questions instead of Senators. Shouldn’t Senators speak (and ask questions) on record about this so they can’t avoid politically difficult questions/positions?