New SCOTUS Judge

[Stacko]

A principled president wouldn't nominate a person for the purpose of protecting himself from legal accountability.

Around the time he tells you you're going to need a list of women that he treated decently in high school prepared is when you know he's toxic.

 

[Stacko]

The Mercury News reports she told friends about the incident in 2017.

In an interview Monday with this news organization, White said that Blasey Ford had told her about the alleged assault — without naming Kavanaugh — in late 2017 during the height of the #MeToo movement and long before Kavanaugh was a Supreme Court nominee.

Last year, White had added her own #MeToo story about being raped as a teenager to a Facebook post.

“She reached out to me afterward, supporting me and my story and that she had something happen to her when she was really young and that the guy was a federal judge,” White said. “She said she had been assaulted. She said hers had been violent as well, physically scary, fighting for her life.”

It’s been difficult for Blasey Ford over the years, she told White, because the judge’s name would come up as “a super powerful guy and he might be a contender for a Supreme Court position one day.”

 

[varwoche]

In the abstract, it's likely that she's telling the truth and he's lying.

She didn't want to go public. She's apparently not a crank. Kavanaugh on the other hand has all sorts of motivation to lie.

Still, under vaguely normal circumstances, I think it's wrong to sink a nomination this way. It makes it too easy to sink nominations fraudulently. These are not normal circumstances however, ever since the Garland fiasco.

 

[Belz...]

Garland was a perfect example of exactly how partisan the country has become. There was literally no reason to not go through the process except to cock-block Obama and just not cooperate with the Democrats. It's all about power, and nothing else.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don’t believe there is such a thing as an impartial investigation in Congress.

Which is why the FBI should be investigating.

I do believe she should be allowed to testify before the Senate.

Sure, although testimony under oath is not and should not be the first step in an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse. Investigation first, then the evidence from that investigation, and testimony.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Which is why the FBI should be investigating.



Sure, although testimony under oath is not and should not be the first step in an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse. Investigation first, then the evidence from that investigation, and testimony.

We shouldn't have the legislature inviting the FBI to investigate people's lives for something they could never charge as a crime. That is police-state-lite.

 

[Segnosaur]

We shouldn't have the legislature inviting the FBI to investigate people's lives for something they could never charge as a crime.

Uhh... yes they should.

There are times when it is necessary to see if an individual may be compromised in their job. For example, gambling may not be illegal (in places line Nevada). But if a person has a habit of running up huge gambling debts, you may not want to put them in a situation where they may have access to large amounts of unaccounted-for cash.

Kavanaugh was not picked at random by the FBI to investigate. He is being investigated largely because he allowed himself to be nominated to be a supreme court judge. If he didn't want any such attention paid to his past history by the FBI, he should have said "thanks but no thanks" when asked about serving on the supreme court.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Uhh... yes they should.

There are times when it is necessary to see if an individual may be compromised in their job. For example, gambling may not be illegal (in places line Nevada). But if a person has a habit of running up huge gambling debts, you may not want to put them in a situation where they may have access to large amounts of unaccounted-for cash.

Kavanaugh was not picked at random by the FBI to investigate. He is being investigated largely because he allowed himself to be nominated to be a supreme court judge. If he didn't want any such attention paid to his past history by the FBI, he should have said "thanks but no thanks" when asked about serving on the supreme court.

Then let the press look into it. Don't make the FBI into the FSB as a solution.

 

[Cain]

In the abstract, it's likely that she's telling the truth and he's lying.

She didn't want to go public. She's apparently not a crank. Kavanaugh on the other hand has all sorts of motivation to lie.

Still, under vaguely normal circumstances, I think it's wrong to sink a nomination this way. It makes it too easy to sink nominations fraudulently. These are not normal circumstances however, ever since the Garland fiasco.

********. She's Dem operative looking for attention (in the form of death threats). She cunningly fabricated this story six years ago, waiting to spring her trap, and then almost didn't do so because she's a stupid San Francisco lib professor.

 

[BobTheCoward]

********. She's Dem operative looking for attention (in the form of death threats). She cunningly fabricated this story six years ago, waiting to spring her trap, and then almost didn't do so because she's a stupid San Francisco lib professor.

I think the accusation is she took an existing event in her life and fabricated the perpetrator. They are going with that because she never mentioned who before.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Then let the press look into it. Don't make the FBI into the FSB as a solution.

Perhaps we need another special counsel

No claim that she knew him or attended the school when the accuser did. The letter was signed by 200+ women who attended Holton-Arms to support a fellow alumna.
https://slate.com/culture/2018/09/b...-julia-louis-dreyfus-high-school-alumnae.html

This has become a popularity contest.

 

[Bob001]

Then let the press look into it. Don't make the FBI into the FSB as a solution.

It's Federal Bureau of Investigation. One of its jobs is to conduct background checks of nominees for high federal positions.

 

[Segnosaur]

There are times when it is necessary to see if an individual may be compromised in their job....Kavanaugh was not picked at random by the FBI to investigate. He is being investigated largely because he allowed himself to be nominated to be a supreme court judge.

Then let the press look into it.

Uhh.. no.

The press does not have the resources (and in many cases the legal authority) to do a complete investigation. And even if they did manage to uncover 'dirt' on a potential candidate, it is doubtful that "the government" would accept it as valid since they themselves did not gather and vet the information for accuracy.

Don't make the FBI into the FSB as a solution.

The fact that you are making the FBI into some sort of "state secret police" does not make it so.

As I pointed out, Kavanaugh is not a random citizen being investigated by the FBI. He has allowed himself to be nominated for an important position. What part of that concept do you not understand?

I would certainly hope the FBI would investigate people before they get high level appointments, or top secret security clearance.

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's Federal Bureau of Investigation. One of its jobs is to conduct background checks of nominees for high federal positions.

And they shouldn't is my point. It is an offensive use of the monopoly on violence.

But this doesn't need anymore discussion here.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I would certainly hope the FBI would investigate people before they get high level appointments, or top secret security clearance.

This notion sickens my stomach, but that is a "me" thing.

 

[LSSBB]

It's Federal Bureau of Investigation. One of its jobs is to conduct background checks of nominees for high federal positions.

In fact, it's job can be anything congress gives it, because it doesn't have a charter.

 

[Cain]

I think the accusation is she took an existing event in her life and fabricated the perpetrator. They are going with that because she never mentioned who before.

She did mention to someone Facebook after #metoo that she had been attacked by a federal judge.

We tell anecdotes all the time. How often do we include names in recounting the events? I recounted story of girls from high school who groped me at Disneyland. I've never bothered to include their names (one of them is now a prosecutor).

It's just a stupid accusation. We'd have to believe this lady researches all the people who ascend to high level positions, and looks to fabricate stories against the ones who conceivably trafficked in the same social circles. Not only did she manage to put Kavanaugh in the timeline, but included his alcoholic buddy Mike Judge.

A more plausible way of undermining her story is that she was assaulted, but she's got the wrong guy. We know she can't remember the house, who it belonged to, so maybe she's mistaken regarding the attacker etc. I'm not saying it's a great argument -- I'd expect someone to remember the name of their attacker, and I'd understand if they forgot the particular house where it occurred.

 

[dudalb]

Once again, I failed my pop culture quiz. Apparently, the reason that 1979 alumnus was notable is that she's a quite famous actress. Her name sounded vaguely familiar to me. Julia Louis-Dreyfus. I'm familiar with many of her roles, especially Elaine on Seinfeld, but had no idea of her name.

No word on whether she actually knew Brett Kavanaugh, or just went to high school at approximately the same time.

She is also a billionaire.....she is heir to the Dreyfuss family fortune,you know, the family that funds the Dreyfuss foundtation when seems to fund half the shows on PBS.

 

[dudalb]

I wonder why the person you quoted thinks Hillary is relevant here. Obsession, it's such a burden to carry.

So is Blind,Unquestioing Loyalty to Dear Leader.

 

[dudalb]

Garland was a perfect example of exactly how partisan the country has become. There was literally no reason to not go through the process except to cock-block Obama and just not cooperate with the Democrats. It's all about power, and nothing else.

It's sad, and dangerous because I think Mao, though one of the greatest mass murderes in history, was sadly right when he stated the ultimate source of political power.