It’s not further indication, it’s not really news. It’s just someone decided to highlight one of the unexplored leads from when it was news.
Removed.
But that is exactly what Feinstein did.
We wish it were otherwise, but apparently there are too many (>0) politicians who look at things only in how their personal agenda can leverage this.
I’m not going to defend Feinstein – I think she mostly sucks, and she’s mostly sucked for a long, long time. But she pushed for a full investigation, even if she probably tried to time it for politics. The Republicans prevented a full investigation of the allegations of sexual abuse. DiFi sucks, but pushing for a full investigation of sexual assault is infinitely morally superior to trying to prevent one, whatever the timing.
That’s all true.
But it certainly re-opens some topics worth re-visiting:
[ul]
[li]The Trump/Barr Department of Justice, and its FBI, handled the “investigation” into Kavanaugh in a way that’s worth close examination, and [/li]
[li]The Republicans who voted for a man who arguably lied to Congress should be held accountable for those votes in their re-election bids, and[/li]
[li]Most specifically, Susan Collins appears to be receiving some close scrutiny from her potential voters. One representative tweet among thousands:[/li][/ul]
The calls for impeaching Kavanaugh may gather force, given that the Dempcratic presidential candidates appear to be leaning heavily into the cause:
Democratic Presidential Candidates Are Calling for Brett Kavanaugh’s Impeachment – Mother Jones
This does have the potential to last for a few news cycles–none of which will be favorable for Trump and his minions.
Of course some Trump/Kavanaugh supporters value angering liberals, but with all due respect, I think you’re being a tad quixotic if you believe those people value fighting sexual assault and rape at all. To do that, they’d have to acknowledge it happens and that it most often happens to women who know their assailants. That in turn would force them to question their own assumptions about women. Not gonna happen.
Why do you think acknowledging either of those things “would force them to question their own assumptions about women”? What assumptions about women do you think “those people” have?
That “they” “don’t give” “a” “shit” about them as long as they get what they want. As if they were subhuman.
A couple of comments on two matters that I think should be obvious: (a) no, the new accusations don’t surprise me in the least, because Christine Ford was a highly credible witness whose account painted a picture consistent with all the other evidence about Kavanaugh’s character and behavior, which should have been clear to anyone with any political affiliation without partisan blinders on, and (b) no, nothing is going to be done about it, not so much for partisan reasons as for the fact that the standards of evidence now required to remove Kavanaugh are no longer achievable for events that happened so long ago.
However, there was ample evidence during the confirmation hearings that the man was clearly unfit for the office of Supreme Court Justice, being a partisan hack, a drunken lout, and a probable rapist. The real question I have is not for conservatives, but for the kind of Republican ideologues who unconditionally support Kavanaugh. What I wonder is simply how they can reconcile with their conscience their support of this degenerate reprobate when a highly regarded moderate like Merrick Garland, eminently qualified and widely respected on both sides of the aisle, wasn’t even allowed the dignity of a confirmation hearing. This is no longer partisanship, this is a fiasco in which the national interest that government is supposed to serve carries no weight whatsoever. This is a dysfunctional political system totally gone to hell.
Hypothetically, let’s suppose the RBG had a deep dark secret. Witnesses come forward, and state that she was a member of the Nazi Party/the KKK/the Communists. At first it’s just one witness, who can’t remember when exactly RBG attended meetings or how many or which city. But later, 25 witnesses are dug up and even her handwriting on a meeting sign in sheet is found. (but it might not be her handwriting, but it looks like it)
Does this really change anything? Would you call for RBG’s immediate removal from the Supreme Court? Maybe there’s even a mechanism - perhaps the statue of limitations for the crimes the club she was allegedly in have passed, but maybe she was asked a direct question during her confirmation hearing and she turns out to have lied.
Would you call for her impeachment, knowing that Trump is immediately going to replace RBG with the most conservative, bigoted, young, well connected attorney he can find?
This is about as ridiculous a hypothetical as I can imagine, but let’s see…
It’d depend on how she reacted. Does she very obviously lie and obfuscate? Or does she talk about how terribly she feels about her poor judgment as a young woman, talk about how much she’s learned, grown, and changed, and deeply (and sincerely) apologize?
When her journal said “Sig heil”? It was an in-joke, a misspelling of “sick hail,” because there was some pretty serious precipitation that year. The “mein fuhrer” that followed? Gosh, they thought German companies were mining too many diamonds back then.
Umm, if Kavanaugh had openly admitted to attempting to rape Ford, and said he was sorry…conservatives aren’t the forgiving type.
And in this hypothetical, the club RBG is alleged to have been a part of committed a serious crime, but one that the statute of limitations has expired on. Perhaps they planted a bomb but it didn’t go off.
But it isn’t clear if RBG was at the meeting the bomb planting was planned at, but other witnesses said she would drunkenly talk about “blowing up” black people/capitalists/U.S. veterans. (it doesn’t matter which club for the sake of the hypothetical, merely that it was one that is an enemy of civilization)
Are you trying to excuse/rationalize lying about committing attempted rape and sexual assault? If so, we can stop here, since I’m not interested in engaging with that.
I’m just pointing out that we live in reality, and men who deny get to keep playing basketball/become supreme court justice. The ones who fess up don’t.
I know it’s a long shot, but it doesn’t strike me as completely implausible that the Democrats could eventually investigate Kavanaugh and, if more allegations come to light and more witnesses come forward, impeach him.
Does anyone know, is there any precedent for a judge being impeached for crimes committed long before he was on the bench?
The crime would be the lying during his confirmation hearing.
Not gonna happen.
It’s possible but it’s an extreme long shot. In general it most likely requires that Kavanaugh told a direct lie, that can be disproven, in his testimony to Congress during the confirmation process. I’ve seen some analysis of what he said - the man’s a lawyer. Despite him appearing to lose his cool when denying the allegations, he was very careful not to make any statements that would trap him later. Here’san article exploring this (in the context of Trump, but it mentions another judge, Thomas Porteous, who was successfully removed for lying to Congress during confirmation.
If you want to read what Kavanaugh said regarding this, the transcript is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/
For example, he says " I was not at the party *described *by Dr. Ford."
I’m here today to tell the truth. I’ve never *sexually assaulted *anyone. Not in high school, not in college, not ever.
Technically he attempted to assault Ford…
I’m reading the transcript. Honestly, Kavanaugh makes an extremely good case. Even if all these allegations are true, they were 36 years ago, and he’s coached a woman’s basketball team, had women as his clerks, 65 women from his high school have written a letter in support that says he didn’t do anything to him.
The evidence is rather damning in his favor - maybe the man got blackout drunk when he was 18 and was sexually aggressive. Maybe he did a few juvenile things later in college. But not a peep of scandal for 30+ years? Everyone testifying he’s a good man? Dude.
Are you saying you don’t find it plausible that he may have sexually assaulted people several times while drunk, but then his behavior changed once he got his drinking under control?
Or, are you saying that even if the allegations are true, it doesn’t matter because the offenses were so long ago? Personally, I’d be fine with a standard of “one attempted rape bars you from the Supreme Court for life” (especially with no effort to make amends for it – like confessing to the crime, or apologizing to his victim – in the subsequent 30 years).