I don’t understand it either. And I haven’t been able to read the rest of the thread. I know US v Gamble was mentioned.
I think your lie count gets more ridiculous the more you talk about it. Now you’re including “there is no way he could say for certain”? Really? Should we count Ford’s certainty as a lie too then?
Personally, I’m fond of how he says that he couldn’t have been a heavy drinker, because he was too busy studying, and he couldn’t have been a rapist, because he was too busy drinking.
Maybe I missed it, but do we have a quote of what he said during the testimony? In fact, it would be helpful if we had a link to a transcript. I’ve looked for one several times, but the only thing I came up with is a transcript of the opening statement. Anyone got a link to the full transcript of last Thursday’s SJC hearing? Also, we really need to see the actual text messages that support the claim of lying under oath. Have we seen them?
Those would be separate cases from Ford, in Ford’s case there is basically nothing to go on. As far a lying are you talking about the documents and if he knew if they were stolen or his drinking?
The FBI has reopened a background check, to investigate some of the issues that you raised. As far as unfit, that’s your opinion. As far as the Constitution is concerned he is fit.
You know it’s funny but you don’t need a law degree, you could be foreign born, and even though all of the judges were lawyers, you don’t need to be a lawyer to be a supreme court judge.
If the investigation can determine that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he’s done.
Other than that, Blasey Ford was the victim of a traumatic sexual assault. However, to this point there is no evidence that Kavanaugh was the attacker. He may have done it, and at this point the chances that he did do it aren’t small, but still there is no proof. There’s not even a preponderance of evidence that Kavanaugh did it. So far, there’s not enough to stop this nomination from going forward, although Kavanaugh’s unbalanced and disrespectful behavior under questioning (in answering the questions, not with his opening speech which I thought was fine, and quite good actually) is enough for me, if I was behind nominating him, to pull my support of that nomination.
One good thing about the publicity generated by all of this, is that victims of sexual assault will hopefully be more likely to report it right away so that police can investigate and collect any evidence, forensic or otherwise, It is very unfortunate, though quite understandable, that Blasey Ford did not.
Yep, but “lie” is very obviously int eye of the beholder, as these threads have shown.
People need to stop saying this. Ford’s testimony is evidence. What is lacking here is corroborating evidence. And that is where the FBI investigation comes in.
Yes, correct — there is no corroborating evidence. Thanks for that.
To the same point, Kavanaugh’s claim that he did not do it, and wasn’t even there, is evidence that he did not do it and wasn’t even there. But we do not have any corroborating evidence of that.
Since the FBI does not reach conclusions, the evidence they uncover will have to be considered by another body to determine if Kavanaugh lied. That would presumably be the Senate. But Mitch McConnell said yesterday that they would hold a vote on Kavanaugh “this week”. If he means the usual Senate week, that would mean Thursday at the latest. Just when will the findings from the FBI be presented to the Senate? Will there be debate? Or will McConnell just steamroll past the FBI investigation and vote on Kavanaugh at the earliest possible opportunity?
The hearing transcript is here. There is also, now,a transcript of the interview he gave to the committee staff by phone on September 25.
At the hearing, he said:
(“Since then” seems to reference the time between his meeting with Sen. Feinstein and the hearing).
In the interview, he said:
And, a little later:
I don’t think we have the text messages. I note that it’s obviously not true that he first heard about the allegations when the New Yorker article was published because they include his denial of the allegations in the article. One charitable reading of the various statements is that he heard that she was calling around to classmates seeking their corroboration for some accusation, but that he did not learn the details until he spoke with the New Yorker. Others would take a less charitable interpretation. But i think those are the relevant quotes that answer your question about what he said on the subject.
Feinstein’s delay is key to this timeline.
I’ve been curious about that. Just going from memory here, but I believe I read that she received the letter in July and then only released the letter after someone leaked that she had it.
A: Is this an accurate timeline?
B: What’s the reasoning behind it if it is accurate?
I’m pretty sure the Senate will wait until the FBI finishes their investigation to vote. Might be a long weekend for them.
No.
Do I really need to explain? The victim of emotional trauma will have strong memories of the event. A drunken lout who undoubtedly would have regarded this as “a harmless bit o’fun” might have forgotten about it by next day, or by the time he was done bouncing off the walls drunkenly pinballing down the stairs, to quote Ford’s description. In the universe that I inhabit, there’s a difference.
If Kavanaugh was smarter he would at least have used the more plausible and reasonable “can’t recall” defense that Mark Judge used, probably on the advice of his lawyer. But Kav is apparently not just a drunken lout, but an arrogant and fairly stupid one.
Thanks! That helps a lot. Agreed that there might still be wiggle room if he can claim that there were details in Ramirez’s allegation that he was unaware of previous to the publication of the story.
We can all argue about whether we will cut him slack or not for that, but the operative issue is whether or not Flake and the other fence sitters will do so. I honestly don’t know the answer to that.
McConnell said there would be a vote this week. Do you believe him?
The FBI investigation was given the go-ahead on Friday. They were told they had a week, max. That means that as long as the vote is held Friday or Saturday this week, it will be held after the FBI investigation is done. Might not give the Senators much time to read the report, but the vote will still be after the investigation is done. And remember, the FBI doesn’t have to use the full 7 days.
If the FBI report comes out on Friday, can McConnell hold a vote on Friday? Is that long enough to read the report and hold meaningful debate?
ETA: There is a time limit on the FBI investigation. There is no time limit on the Senate vote.
All but a very few Senators have made up their minds already. In that environment, I’m not sure what “meaningful debate” means. There will not be time to have much debate, meaningful or otherwise. I don’t know that Flakes and the other fence sitters need debate in order make up their minds. I guess they can voice that concern if they have any.
No. He can’t hold the “vote” on Friday (and by vote I mean the vote to officially confirm Kavanaugh - there will be other procedural votes on Kavanaugh between now and the final confirmation vote).
Currently, they are in the debate process for Kavanaugh, even though no formal floor debating is going on as they are waiting on the FBI investigation or just doing other Senate stuff. Before McConnell can hold the confirmation vote, he has to formally end the debate (cloture). Once he invokes cloture, it’ll take roughly 4 days before the confirmation vote can be held.
So let’s see if McConnell decides to end the debate prior to the conclusion of the FBI investigation on Friday. If he waits until Friday, the vote would be the next week.