Because nothing about this -- NOTHING -- has felt right from the get go. Something is definitely off.


.

where damn near any kind of criminal, outrageous, unconscionable behavior is OK and good to go!

before investigating. This current band of Trumplicons are an amoral cult concerned only with solidifying power. 2 yrs of complete control of congress and they have accomplished nothing for the majority of Americans. Robbed the treasury before our eyes. Approved nationwide pollution and even got involved in child trafficking. This PINO and his cult of greedy power mongers are pretend Americans who have sold off America. Now they want to own the SC with this fanatic right wing liar.

Dr. Blasey Ford has the receipts.

...he's backed by a corrupt, morally bankrupt Congressional majority. And he wants desperately to be a SCOTUS justice, so he decided to go with the "deny, deny, deny" tactic.

The fact that it's still more likely than not that Kavanaugh will be appointed speaks volumes about the Republican Party.

confessing to a felony if he admits the act. If evidence shows he's the one behind the assault on Blasey, he's finished. So there can be NO FBI investigation. The GOP will see to that.

So, will there be another shoe to drop? One more shoe and Kavanaugh will withdraw, no matter the strength of evidence. He will have lost his political capital. Something will come up this weekend.

And I do believe there will be more exposing kavanaugh for other things he's involved in , and that trump and the kgop know about them, and they still want him on the court, because they can use it against him , and russia's putin can too. He's already been corrupted , and can be used to manipulate votes when needed for protections. Either way it'll catch up to them and trump , and especially kavanuagh.

He could have claimed they had both been drinking, that she initiated the encounter and that he's the one who put a stop to it. And he could have gotten his friend Mike Judge to corroborate.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is she's calling for an investigation and he isn't. That screams she's telling the truth and he's lying. But she isn't backed by a Congressional majority.

Both are guilty as hell. The Republicans are making Dr. Ford into the bad guy and Kavanaugh the innocent victim in their rush to a confirmation vote before the October 1 start of the new SC term.

Dr. Ford is being railroaded.

First, he was unequivocal in his denial.
Then his good friend Ed Whelan said it was a case of mistaken identity and went so far in trying to prove it that he committed defamation.
And then, Trump says it couldn’t have really been that bad or it would have been reported to the police.

Not only is Kavanaugh guilty, the people around him know it. The real tragedy is that they not care.

Rump: Don't worry, Brett, we'll get you on the SCOTUS!

Kavanaugh: But I did it, and if they actually let Dr. Ford testify, I'm toast.

Rump: I have Grassley by the balls. He will force his senators to vote for you.

Kavanaugh: Well, I could get my buddy to concoct a story to throw them off the scent.

Rump: Good! Now you're thinking like a tremendous judge! Remember, I'm behind you now, so when it I get indicted, you have to have my back.

He wasn’t denying it. He basically admitted the event happened by his stupid tweet.

Didnt he even deny that he was ever at a party before he even knew who his accuser was or when?

Shit is so blatantly obvious.

The fact that he and the Republicans are treating that like the plague just screams GUILTY to me.

Are the potential surrogates interviewing Dr. Ford required for both Democrats and Republicans? What if a Senator wants to ask a question will that be allowed?

Just when you think it cannot be stranger.

...so it doesn't look like 8 or 9 rich old Republican men ganging up on Dr. Ford.
(They want to avoid another Anita Hill pile-on.)

But on the Dem side, at least 2 women would be asking questions: DiFi and Kamala Harris.

That would a very effective message Democratic men and women doing something Republican are afraid of doing. Just a guess but Dr. Ford knows herself well and is courageous to even consider going before deplorables. In this dark age the risks are greater every day.

The burden of proof is not on him, it is on her. As a lawyer he knows that the FBI does not have jurisdiction and Maryland won't without a criminal complaint. So do Ms. Ford's.

If you want a system that has a presumption of guilt, move to France or Japan.

Do you think Ford's lawyer's insistence that Kavanaugh be denied his fifth and sixth amendment rights are reasonable? I don't. That is totally unacceptable.
Does this look like a search for justice or truth?
Let me ask you this: Do you have a son? I do. I have a daughter too. How would you feel if someone he may or may not know either out of mistaken identity or malice decides to accuse him of a crime that in our society is so heinous that simply being accused, even if proven innocent, destroys his life and a conviction could get you the death penalty by fellow prisoners? Then the accuser's lawyers want to set the conditions to deny him his ability to defend himself against said charges as protected in the Constitution? If neither one of us would find it acceptable for our sons, why should it be OK for his guy or anyone else? You either stand up for liberal and Enlightenment principles or you don't. I know that makes me kind of unpopular around here, I don't give a rat's ass because principle becomes before popularity or party.

Here is another question: If this were a nominee by, say Hillary, would you say the same thing or would it be "well, it was teenage stupidity 36 years ago"?
For me it is easy. I have the same standard for everyone, be they a political opponent or not.

Do I think she was assaulted in her teens? I'm inclined to think so and seems to be a problem in those prep schools according to past and former female students. Do I think Kavanaugh was responsible? I have no reason to think one way or another. Problem is, her lawyers destroyed her credibility for the reasons above.

... who have convinced me of his guilt - and the cover-up.

So now, in this instance, I've decided to assess this case by their rules, and make a judgment based solely on what I've seen and heard of everyone's behaviour and their statements. Because they are refusing to even make an effort to deal with this in a straightforward manner and look into any facts, they leave me no alternative.

In other words, by their refusal to even consider that this matter deserves anything more than outright dismissal without further inquiry, they have convinced me that Kavanaugh has something to hide - and they're helping him hide it.

They bullied Professor Ford by making demands and giving her a take-it-or-leave-it chance to be heard - on their timetable and their terms.

They have demeaned her - even gone so far as to name another man as the probable "real" aggressor, based on "evidence" that is beyond laughable.

An innocent man doesn't go along with party operatives running the show to his own detriment - and that's exactly what Kavanaugh is doing.

And this isn't the only thing about Kavanaugh's nomination that smells.

Would I feel the same if this happened to a Hillary nominee? What do you think the chances are that in the same circumstances, Hillary would have demanded that her nominee's confirmation be pushed through while ignoring allegations as serious as these? How about the chances of Hillary tweeting that if the accuser was being truthful, she would have reported the assault at the time?

Of course, I can't imagine HRC - or any Democratic president - having to ensure that their pick was confirmed in order to cover their ass in future legal matters that might be heard by the SCOTUS with respect to her colluding with our enemies and obstructing justice.

And offering an alternative explanation is not demeaning. Her insistence that he be denyed his fifth and sixth amendment rights is despicable. Claiming anyone should have to prove their innocence not a liberal She has provided no evidence, no witnesses, no time of the year. Nothing. Could it be her lawyer's malpractice? Or maybe the fact that his mom was the judge that ruled against her parents in a foreclosure case?

Are you naive to think the parties are 100 percent good or bad? Do you think George Wallace and Fred Phelps were our only bad apples? Holy shit.

This is the way it should go down:
bring witnesses and lawyer, she presents case first while he is in the room and be open to cross examination. Same with him. Everything done by outside counsel and members just shut up. That should be the only offer, and turning it down will bring US marshals to the door to bring you there. Any evidence should be turned over to Maryland authorities. Put up or shut up. If her evidence falls short or if he can prove he was nowhere near there during that time. she better hope that he isn't an asshole like I am. Try to destroy mine and my family's lives? My defamation suit would start with public apology, both houses, every penny in any bank account.

Nobody should be able to accuse anyone of a serous crime and not have to prove it. I don't give a fuck who it is or why.

... that Kavanaugh has to "prove his innocence"?

And who claimed that both parties are "100% good or bad"?

You asked how I would react if it were a Hillary nominee - and I answered. Do you really think the Democrats would ever elect a president who had to ensure a SCOTUS pick for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from being indicted for what basically comes down to committing treason?

The GOP isn't interested in proving innocence - they're only interested in making this whole episode go away, by whatever means necessary.

Why? Why the rush to get Kavanaugh confirmed? Why the need to point to someone else as a possible alternative assailant? Why refuse to even pretend that they're willing to accommodate Ms. Ford in every way possible in order to hear her out - which, from a public perception viewpoint, is extremely damning. Even if they know they're going to confirm Kavanaugh despite anything Ford - or other witnesses - may say, why be so insistent that she (and they) not be heard at all?

The GOP have made their case - and their own behaviour points to their nominee's guilt. I'm sure that's not how they thought things would go, but this juror has no choice - based on the faulty case presented by the Republicans - but to assume their client is guilty as charged.

They really should have thought this one through. But maybe their "pResident's" lack of thought - and the ensuing consequences - is contagious.

When he floated that rumor.

There was, in fact, a 1996 foreclosure case involving Martha Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey’s parents. But according to CBS News, the Blaseys settled with their bank, and Judge Kavanaugh dismissed the case. Citing court records, Snopes noted that Judge Kavanaugh’s ruling actually allowed the Blaseys to keep their home.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaughs-fact-check.amp.html

Because what she is demanding violates the fifth and sixth amendments and prevent him from defending himself. That is totally unacceptable. I don't care who it is. Even if Alex Jones is the nominee, that is cynical and disgusting. Ford's lawyers know better, but it makes it look like they knew Grassley would have to tell them to pound sand. It makes it look like she is doing it for personal gain and not for justice.

There should be no special accommodations for anyone. They bent over backwards to hear her out, but her demands are unacceptable and declines to show up. As of 10PM Friday, her lawyer said they refuse to show up. I don't know what your sources are, but they as full of shit as Fox and Breitbart. That point to his guilt or innocence, but it points to her not wanting to be under oath and a false accusation for whatever reason.

As a juror, you failed. As a juror, you decide ONLY on the facts and evidence presented. As a juror, did not see a case. As a juror, you decided the verdict before even walking into the courthouse. You saw a prosecution play games and refuse to show up and demand that the defendant's rights be violated. What other witnesses? Their statements under oath is "wasn't there, didn't happen." Now she should put up or shut up. Besides, didn't she also say that she didn't remember who was there, what house, or even when? There is so much reasonable doubt there, the DA wouldn't take it to trial even if it is was a crime in 1982.

Did they think it through? I don't know. DiFi knew about it since July and said nothing until now. Even if Ford is being honest, her lawyer and DiFi are not doing her any favors.
Like I said, she should get an offer she can't refuse. Accusing people of crimes with no evidence, or falsely accusing them, is totally unacceptable. Any Senate member of any party who takes part in that kind of bullshit should be expelled from office. It is the one zero tolerance I believe in.

Yeah, who wouldn't want to get it on the "personal gain" of having to leave their own home and worry about death threats?

" ... it points to her not wanting to be under oath and a false accusation for whatever reason."

She asked for an FBI investigation - knowing that lying to the FBI is a crime. Kavanaugh and the Repubs don't want any such investigation. Why?

"Accusing people of crimes with no evidence, or falsely accusing them, is totally unacceptable."

Agreed. So why were the GOP so quick to accuse someone else of having been Ford's attacker?

Kavanaugh's response has been "I wasn't there". Given that Ford has never identified the "where", how can Kavanaugh know he wasn't there?

"DiFi knew about it since July and said nothing until now."

Coincidentally, that's exactly what the Republicans have been harping on - and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the events Professor Ford has described occurred or didn't occur.

and then a reasonable nominee would have to be put up, or the court simply stays at 8.

Or maybe the fact that his mom was the judge that ruled against her parents in a foreclosure case?

Take that shit elsewhere.

I stand corrected. It seems that the blogger who made the claim misread the court documents. In fact, his mom dismissed the foreclosure the next year after the Fords refinanced. However, I stand by the fifth and sixth amendment violations and the sleaziness of her lawyer.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-lays-out-conditions-for-senate-testimony/

It's a hearing for our elected officials to decide to vote to place him in arguably the highest 'office' in the land, certainly the longest-lasting, highly-powerful office available in this country.

In no possible scenario here is he in danger of forfeiting his freedom, property, no matter what is said in the hearing.

And I'd remind you ... he did not have to accept this nomination and hence expose his life's 'work' to (proper) scrutiny.

I don't believe he has any such '5th or 6th amendment rights' whatsoever in this scenario. He has a RIGHT ... to either tell the truth, or to withdraw his name from consideration, and that's about it, AFAIC.

Investigating and a jury and judge. She has none if that. Get a full grip, will ya??

this isn't a criminal prosecution; it's a job interview. Do his Constitutional rights apply in this situation?

There won't be possible to collect any physical evidence after that many years.
So how do you envision this investigation going?

It happens every day of the week.

If I get mugged and call the police, even if I name my mugger, I don't have "to prove" what happened and who did it to the police in order for them to investigate. If every crime victim had to "prove" that a crime was committed, and if every possible perp ID had to be proved when reporting the crime, hardly any crime would ever be investigated.

That's what police and prosecutors are for--to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and make a judgment as to the veracity of the witnesses and strength of the evidence. If they judge the case credible, they move on to indict, prosecute, and possibly convict. It isn't up to the victim to do that work for them.

Which is precisely the purpose of an FBI investigation--to investigate this charge. It speaks volumes that she and her attorney are demanding such an investigation, and the nominee and his supporters are desperate to keep it from happening.

Also consider that this isn't--as yet--a question of criminal exposure. The man is being considered for the highest court in the land. EVERY effort should be made to hold him to the highest standards of integrity. Asserting his fifth amendment right is all well and good, but the NEED to assert such a right should disqualify him from being appointed justice (and who knows, perhaps someday Chief Justice) of the US Supreme Court.

It's a hearing to determine if he's fit to be on the Supreme Court. He cannot be sentenced or fined. He can only be seen as fit or unfit for the Court. He also perjured himself under oath. He will probably be seated because Republicans are bereft of morals and shame. Maybe our best hope is to impeach him in a couple of years.

See the post by babylonsister
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211162342

Kavanaugh Bears the Burden of Proof
The question isn’t whether he can win confirmation—it’s whether he can defend against the charge he faces in a manner that is both persuasive and honorable.

Benjamin Wittes
Editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation/571021/

This former federal prosecutor would know...

it's not a court of law where he has been charged with it.

it is a matter of convincing the majority of the Senate.

Why, if you think it's tantamount to a conviction for Kavanaugh to not get the lifetime appointment to SCOTUS that he's entitled to, then say it, loud and proud! Ford and her supporters are aiming to CONVICT him with their perfidious lies! Don't wimp out, now.

The end result would be him removed as nominee, but not convicted of anything. I used the term referencing the probable, IMO, outcome of an actual court case.

They just don't give a fuck about anything but "winning." I really, really, really hope I'm wrong.

The Republicans seek to capitalize upon the asymmetry of commitment to principles evidenced between the two principle parties. They believe we must "play by the rules" and so, in their abandoning the rules, they will find a significant advantage. It appears that they embrace a kind of Gresham's Law for politics; 'bad politics drives out good politics.' This treasonous and destructive republican effort applied to the foundational structures of our democratic republic must be resisted and defeated.

act like it.. and, of course, they don't give a shite.

They know he's unfit for the Supreme Court. That's why they've hidden so many thousands of documents.

Kavanaugh is guilty as hell

She gains nothing from this and in fact, loses quite a lot.

The repubs won't allow the FBI in on this because one simple reason - time. They know if the investigation goes forth they will find all kinds of evidence (if there is one there are more victims!) and there isn't enough time to ram through another before the blue wave hits and they don't have the majority anymore. This was brilliantly played by Nancy. Had she brought it up sooner there would have been time to find a replacement.

You say you would absolutely want an investigation, but there is literally no way for an investigation 30 plus years later to prove anything one way or another. There's no physical evidence, there's no concrete time/place. So the potential outcomes are a) he's guilty and admits it, b) she's lying and admits it or c) most likely nothing is put out convincingly in either direction and people who think he's innocent or guilty already will continue to think so. Two of those options are bad for him and the other is pretty unlikely given that both very few victims are lying (which is why I think it's likely he's guilty) and if she's come this far and is lying, she's unlikely to confess (as is he if he's guilty).

He has only a small chance of gaining anything from an investigation and having it will only keep this in the news longer.

There is literally no way to clear Kavanaugh of this because of the time past and the uncertainty of the time/place.

Again, I think he's almost certainly guilty of it, and at the very least being a creep with regards to having his clerks look a certain way. But proving it, that's another matter.

That many years later, how do you prove something did or didn't happen as she remembers it?

Your concerns. For example, search for an OP by CTYankee.

Get started.

I and thousands of other women DO INDEED remember -- that is the type of thing one desperately wants to forget, and just cannot. I can give you the WHO, when, where and how in great detail -- all of it over 50 years ago.

She doesnt remember whose house or where.
Everyone I know who has been through it, like you, remembers it. The one time I was in a situation where I MAY have been at risk of molestation, I remember exactly where I was. And I didnt even know what was going on at the time, since I was in the 4th grade. It just didnt feel right, but looking back later I realized what may have been about to happen.

That's why there are statutes of limitations, although apparently Maryland doesn't have it.

Simply giving up the job as being impossible will in fact make it impossible.

How do historians investigate something that happened centuries ago?

You look for documents, contemporaneous accounts.

How to investigate a possible crime thirty (or fifty) years later?

You seek out and interview witnesses. You go through e-mails, correspondence, etc.

The last Nazi war criminal was indicted in Germany only a few years ago--close to three quarters of a century after the crimes in question.

It IS possible, but one has to begin by trying.

Years after the incidents occurred.

Thank you.

He's totally guilty and there are more women out there who should come forward.

Whattabout the perjury? Whattabout the $200,000 gambling debt (in its self) and who paid it off for him? The alleged, but very believable, teenage sexual assault is relevant enough, but it seems to be distracting from all the other reasons that this man should NEVER sit on the Supreme Court.

To ram thru before the blue wave.

maybe they'll pull it off. I don't know, but a part of me sees there is opportunity to be rid of him. He will not do well under questioning, Ford will be fine.

Then we could talk to witnesses and gather information relevant to the case. If only... oh well at least we will have a space force soon in case anyone is sexually assaulted outside of the planet.

And unqualified. Dump just wants this hypocritical Republican Hair Helmet (TM) to protect him when the shit comes down. And it's coming...

Win or lose he is done for, this will always follow him.