Confirmed.
Lying about the extent and nature of his drinking, and yearbook references. But forgot that, that’s not being looked at. So I’ll toss a dem or two into his confirmation.
What did he say that you think could be considered a lie, if not the denial about blacking out? Honest question-- I didn’t see the entire committee coverage, and haven’t read a transcript. But I didn’t hear anything where he made assertions or denials about his drinking other than “I like beer. I still like beer. I drank beer in high school. Sometimes we drank too much” etc.
I’m horrified that this brute is seen as the relatively sane, cautious pick.
Oh. OK, let’s hear from his colleagues on the bench. Think they’ll vouch for him?
If someone from HS or college told the FBI that Brett told them he got so wasted last night he didn’t remember what happened and they proceed to talk about what happened. That seems relevant to all the allegations. That seems like a direct contradiction to Brett’s testimony about never forgetting anything after a night of drinking.
But if you can’t ask the question.
He lied about, “Anyone remember who won that game?”
He told some ridiculous story about having such a good time he didn’t pay attention to the end of the game. You know because of friends and fun and such.
One of the games in question was a final four match up between Georgetown, a local university, and Louisville which Georgetown won by four points. Georgetown lost in the NCAA final two days later.
His yearbook quote is obviously referring to getting so epically wasted before and during that game that he had to ask who won the next day. That’s the kind of thing that’s still something to joke about months later at yearbook time.
His story doesn’t pass the smell test.
He also lied about “Beach Week Ralph Club”.
I don’t trust Flake and I think all he’s looking for is an excuse to say “due diligence done” and vote “yes”. I don’t think it will matter to him if the investigation was partially a sham.
But I also think that even a partial sham investigation might reveal something that will end up being disqualifying to those like Flake – even if it’s just testimony that demonstrates dishonesty for Kavanaugh. I’d roughly agree with your 60-40 prediction; maybe 70-30, for confirmation.
My assumption is that this is a sham FBI investigation that is intentionally limited in scope and power. After that Kavanaugh gets confirmed.
However if the democrats win in 2018 and have legitimate investigations which uncover wrongdoing, does anything happen? Do we just have to accept having a perjurer and rapist on the supreme court?
Are there any chances of prosecution for perjury or sexual offenses? What about disbarment for perjury? Can a supreme court judge be disbarred?
Impeachment is the remedy. Plus charging with the appropriate criminal offence.
Any of the alleged moderate Republicans who vote for this are going to pay too huge a price when there are equally conservative candidates out there without assault allegations and a whole bunch lying. I wonder if for Collins, Murkowski, etc should get together and make sure that enough of them are out of Washington at all times so that Mitch can’t bring a vote. They can’t be punished for a vote they never take. Flake might be a weak link too, however slim considering he’s retiring. Rotate them in and out. Mitch won’t have 50.
I think that’s an almost non-existent chance, but I think there are going to be several curve balls this week we didn’t predict. This is the one I’m going to guess. Especially if the White House is going to be playing games with what it allows the FBI to investigate. They can’t use an investigation as cover for a yea vote if the investigation is a sham. Better to ghost Mitch and not vote at all.
The fundamental issue remains unchanged - even if impeached, getting 2/3 of the Senate to remove from office in today’s hyper-polarized politics is impossible, especially if the ramification is that a conservative like Kav would be replaced by a liberal nominee. Republicans would never go along with that.
I didn’t say it was an effective remedy. 
Worth noting that contrary to Kavanaugh’s testimony, the statute of limitations has run on the attempted rape charge.
It’s not just Kav’s testimony. The “no statute of limitation” thing has been widely reported. I cited a source upthread a few days ago that agreed with what you are saying, but the Montgomery County officials have said since then that are ready to investigate, if a complaint is filed. In fact, it gets even more confusing now. From the Baltimore Sun yesterday:
Are they saying they would investigate, even if they can’t charge anyone with a crime, or are they saying there might be some way around the SoL issue? The latter doesn’t seem possible, but maybe you can shed some light?
I think they’re saying they’d investigate to see if they could charge anyone with a crime, because they can’t make a formal determination of that based off of a news report.
Agreed.
I’ll say 75% confirmed for Kavanaughful.
The FBI “investigation” won’t shed any new evidence. It’ll be quick and basically and investigation in name only. So they can say, “Hey! What?? We investigated!” in their defense.
Of course, the SMART thing to do is to simply end all this for everyone by nominating someone ELSE!! WTF? Too much baggage? Nope, can’t use you on SCOTUS.
That’s not really my question. Of course they can’t determine if a crime has been committed off a news report. But if Dr. Ford were to go to them and says: “I’d like to file a complaint against Kavanaugh. He sexually assaulted me in 1982.” Would they investigate a crime for which no criminal charges could be filed? Or would they, for example, think: Well, maybe it actually was a rape, not an attempted rape, or some other crime with no SoL issue and we won’t know until we investigate? Or would they tell Dr. Ford: “Fill out this form and we’ll get someone right on it”, and then file the report away somewhere and send here a letter in a few weeks saying the investigation was stymied because of SoL issues or make some other excuse?
I’m trying to get at what you think they’d actually do. And if you were Dr. Ford’s attorney and she said she wanted to file criminal charges, what advice would you offer her?
My instinct tells me it’s a non-starter, but IANAL so my instincts could easily be wrong.
He’s definitely a very severe alcoholic. Even if he isn’t actively drinking, he’d still be what AA calls a dry drunk.
Did anyone else see the SNL opener? That one implied that he was “powdering his nose” during the lunch break.
Ahhhh, only a contemporary high school classmate is a peer, but fast forward a few months and a college freshman roommate that lives with him 24/7 is *not *a peer?
Regardless, Kav sure acted like a mean drunk during last Thursday’s session. The raging, the crying, the crying and raging, the himpathy, can’t remember shit but I do *like *beer, ad nauseum