Correct me if I'm wrong but they weren't being asked to judge whether Kavanagh was guilty or not guilty, were they? They were being asked if he was fit to be on the Supreme Court?
So if a guy is an arsehole to you. And then you see him be an arsehole to his dog. And then you see him be an arsehole to his wife. And then you see him be an arsehole to his kid .
Any update on your "18 months old" bollocks?
No District Attorney would take this case up. No evidence. Testimony that would get torn to shreds by any decent cross-examination. No corroborating witnesses to this crime.
From an article:
Because it allegedly happened prior to 1996, it is subject to the statute of limitations so can't take it to the police.
I have no fecking clue about senate procedures, but a "two hour rule" seems ridiculousWow! It seems Grassley cut it short so there could be no "binding" vote on the agreement to postpone the final vote for a minimum of one week. Instead we are left with a "gentlemen's and ladies agreement" which has no legally binding place.
The meeting’s final moments: (from the Guardian's rolling coverage)
They were always going to vote for him if these accusations didn't come up. They obvisouly believe he is fit for the Supreme Court. The question is did he do it or not - which is why we need an investigation. If he didn't do it, it feels wrong that the only reason that senators who would normally vote for him didn't vote for him, is because of something he didn't do.
Obvisouly, common sense prevails in that instance. The scale of the crime is proportional to the scale of the investigation. My thoughts on the situation are above.
Indeed. You do have to wonder why Republicans were so keen to avoid any investigation, after all.
Anyway, I didn't go through your "ss" suggestion but did something more subtle.
nicely done, Sir.They were but I don't see why you'd need such a high burden of proof to decide that the allegations (and indeed his response to them, including some rather blatant lies regarding surrounding facts) warrant a rethink on your decision to nominate him for one of the country's most privileged positions. You can decide you don't want to actively endorse him without having to decide he's guilty.
@Carolina Red mentioned combat veterans as an example of PTSD sufferers. How they, you know, don't like to talk about what they saw or experienced, because they might end up reliving it and that is horrid. So they shove it to the back of their mind and try to forget about it. You're the dumbass who then, for some unknown reason, started acting like there's any kind of appreciable difference in the PTSD suffered by combat veterans, and the PTSD suffered by people who have lived through other traumatic events. PTSD is PTSD. What caused it varies, what triggers it will vary, but at the end of the day it is still PTSD.
You beat me to it.
Cheers
He is in a very privileged position in the DC Court of Appeals already. I think it's fair that if he is deemed not fit for the Supreme Court, then it should be similarly easy for his spot on the bench to be yanked. And that's the contradiction there for me. The burden of proof should be high to yank him off.
The evidence currently isn't very strong. It's one person's word against another's. I'm not asking for proof, but there has to be stronger evidence than that. It could be mistaken identity and they could both be telling the truth.
Isn't it more than one incident?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I was talking about the Dr. Ford case. There are 3 cases, each of which, it is only one persons word against another's. That's not strong enough evidence.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It should certainly cast enough shade for one to be able to doubt the character of a person up for a supreme court nomination.
surely the FBI will make its report to the Senate.
I don't believe so. It should certainly cast enough shade that a proper and thorough investigation take place.
Will probably need immunity
What the feck does "confidently" mean? This guy is dodgy.
That is essentially the same thing that I wrote. You can't just confirm a guy with these allegations hanging over him - his character is too much in doubt. If a proper and thorough investigation removes those doubts then sure, but it is those doubts that precipitate any investigation in the first place.
that would be great if he confirmed everything Dr. Ford said and Kavanaugh is left hanging.
I don't know the Senate Judiciary Committee convention. If Flake said no, could they go back for another vote when the FBI investigation finished? If so, he should have voted no. Regardless, he shouldn't have voted and it would have been a tie, where he would hold all the cards.
Immunity from what?
Theres no statute of limitations in Marland apparently
Yes that's what I'm thinking. This is so obvious that Ford testimony is true and so obvious that they are hiding something and know the FBI will find out. I can see a scenario where he sings like a canary
It would be even better that he not get the nomination but is removed from his current position.
I'm pretty sure they could have delayed sending it out of committee for a week (not positive though). I'm also unsure what the proposed FBI investigation will look like, whether it will only look at Ford's allegation or whether the two further allegations will also be investigated. The terms of the investigation are also in question as is whether a week is really long enough for a thorough one to take place. I'm not certain what 'limited in scope' means in this instance.
Limited to saying approve him
People don't need to tell police the truth. They need to tell the truth to the FBI or they can end up in jail.
Jeff flake cya as usual
I thought Flake said he wanted the FBI to investigate the allegations.
That would be some justice for Ford
