Lots of good stuff, folk. Sorry I’ve been away.
A lot more “Nos” than I suspected.
But it seems this has diverged far from my OP and is closely resembling the other thread…
I’m afraid that his chances are good. The sham FBI investigation is so hamstrung by limitations it will be like reading braille while wearing a catcher’s mitt. Can’t talk to this victim, can’t talk about his drinking. He probably directed them to report that anything less than absolute proof of guilt must be reported as absolute proof of innocence. If he fails, who knows, maybe he’ll market a beer brand: Kavanale: makes you forget what you did.
I tire of Susan Collins pretending to be distraught over this vote. She’ll toe the R line like she always does. Flake is absolutely free to vote his conscience but will likely keep voting the way Donald tells him to. Murkowski may be the likeliest no among the R tribe.
I agree with you. One reason I was sick of the deification of McCain - who got outsized credit (WRT his Senatorial conduct) for a couple of instances of character.
As I recall, IL’s longtime incumbent D senator Dixon lost shortly after voting to affirm Thomas. Hoping similar fates face many who vote for K now.
They might be but after Kavanaugh’s pathetic handling of the judiciary committee’s questions, if I were Trump I would want to pull my endorsement for the guy. The FBI investigation might eventually be used to remove Kavanaugh.
They will find he lied about the drinking and disqualify him for that reason so right wingers can claim they never proved anything about the assault and ruined the life of a good man for drinking in college.
This is an interesting comment. Watching his performance I thought “Golly neds, this guy sure doesn’t have the temperament to judge a pie-eating contest, let alone be on the Supreme Court.” I thought that reasoned people on the right would walk away from him in droves. But instead, most conservatives are doubling down on him, as if this particular justice MUST be confirmed as opposed to the myriad anti-abortion judges who didn’t rape passed-out women in their youths. I simply don’t understand the fixation on this one guy and why all the Republicans are doubling down on him.
Almost certainly not going to happen. Mainly because the FBI has to stick to the “narrow scope” of the investigation which does not include general info about his drinking. They are going to be asking about the event that allegedly took place in high school and the one that took place at Yale. That’s it.
There are two ways that drinking can come into it.
- If they are asked to investigate directly.
- If it comes up in the scope of their investigation on other things, which is likely and his friend who went to the papers to say that he is lying has already said he is meeting the FBI.
As it stands the reason that his drinking is unlikely to sink him is since “drinking too much” and “at times” are both subjective. Unless you find multiple hospital and police records of him being treated for acute alcohol poisoning and being in the drunk tank, you could have two people agreeing in every detail, but coming to different conclusions about its significance…
Because of US v Gamble, and the assumption that Kavanaugh will help to allow Trump’s pardon power to override any state charges.
Actually, the FBI investigation absolutely will come back clean. The FBI is only permitted to speak to 4 people, and classmates of Kavanaugh who have attempted to contact the FBI with information about his behavior are being given the run-around. The entire “FBI investigation” is a travesty.
Anyway, the sham instigation is proof that the Republicans are going to go ahead with the confirmation, and they have the votes to make it happen.
Are the other 4 Republican justices pretty much in the tank on this case?
I did not hear that anyone other than the Ford, Judge and Ford’s friend were meeting with the FBI. Where did you hear about the other person? And do you know that the FBI will be talking to them about Kav’s general drinking habits as opposed to info that person might have specifically about the 1 of the 2 incidents they are supposed to investigate?
BobLibDem - I believe that it’s assumed, which would leave the hold out hope that Roberts doesn’t go along.
It’s from the New Yorker article:
A Yale classmate attempting to corroborate Deborah Ramirez’s account that, during her freshman year at Yale, Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face at a drunken party, said that he, too, has struggled unsuccessfully to reach the F.B.I. The classmate, who asked to remain anonymous, recalled hearing about Ramirez’s allegation either the night it happened or during the following two days. The classmate said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he had heard an account that was practically identical to Ramirez’s, thirty-five years ago, but the two had never spoken about it. He had hoped to convey this to the F.B.I., but, when he reached out to a Bureau official in Washington, D.C., he was told to contact the F.B.I. field office nearest his home. When he tried that, he was referred to a recording. After several attempts to reach a live person at the field office, he finally reached an official who he said had no idea what he was talking about. At this point, he went back to the official at the F.B.I.’s D.C. headquarters, who then referred him, too, to an 800-number tip line. (He eventually left a tip through an online portal.)
…
On Sunday, a second Yale classmate, Charles Ludington, released a statement accusing Kavanaugh of blatantly mischaracterizing his college drinking during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Ludington said that Kavanaugh often grew “belligerent and aggressive” when drunk, and that he had planned to share his information with the F.B.I. “I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth,” Ludington wrote. “I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will however, take my information to the F.B.I.” The Times reported that Ludington, a professor at North Carolina State University, said that the F.B.I.’s D.C. field office had told him to go to the Bureau’s Raleigh, North Carolina, field office on Monday if he wished to speak with agents. Ludington said that he intended to do so and “tell the full details of my story.”
ACLU has filed a brief supporting a change in the law. Gorsuch is the wildcard, due to his English law background.
No. It’s about ending the multiple sovereigns exceptions to Double Jeopardy, which means separate that State and Federal charges can be brought for the same transaction without violating Double Jeopardy.
ACLU supports this move. Probably the liberal justices do as well. The wildcard as I have said, is Neil Gorsuch. I don’t expect Kavanaugh to join the liberals on the Court if he is confirmed before it gets taken up.
Where did you hear that Ford is meeting with the FBI? From the reporting so far, she isn’t even on the McGahn’s witness list.
Should have been Ramirez.
Yeah, reports are that they are not meeting with either Ford or Kavanaugh. Which is mind boggling, but not surprising because… Trump.
Thank you for fighting my ignorance, AK84.
Yes, seconded. I generally support the ACLU but I think they’ve got it wrong this time. There has to be a mechanism to stop a malevolent president from being able to issue pardons which would prevent state prosecution. If he pardons you from the federal crime before trial, it seems to me that you haven’t faced any jeopardy yet, so the state charges would only take you to regular jeopardy, not double.