Brett Kavanaugh now under FBI investigation

[Pavlov]

Except that it wasn't new information. The Dems had it since July. But you get my point, I think.

It is new information. Let the FBI investigate it. It won't take long and your side has nothing to hide.

[cd98]

Do you think the FBI will get different answers from all “witnesses”, who have stated they don’t know wtf Dr. Ford is talking about?

That's the big joke in all this. Somehow the FBI is supposed to make Ford remember everything again so they can start an investigation.

[cd98]

It is new information. Let the FBI investigate it. It won't take long and your side has nothing to hide.

Yes, I think it was the Dems that were hiding things.

[Pavlov]

Yes, I think it was the Dems that were hiding things.

Great, then an FBI investigation will be even better for your side.

[boutons_deux]

Drudge Says Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer Set to Break Report on Kavanaugh: ‘Another Woman?’

https://www.mediaite.com/online/drud...another-woman/

[ducks]

Another never trumper ....
another lie

[ElNono]

I'm not saying she is definitively lying. She jusy has no proof. And the other people involved have made her no proof story even less valuable. There isn't a history of other no proof accusations either. The idea that this should eliminate him from this position is ridiculous.

My comments like that generally directed at a recent post by someone. It also captures a general reality though.

How can you tell she has no proof, or her story is non believable if you haven't even heard it yet? And, the fact that somebody would give her the benefit of the doubt until she tells her story doesn't automatically mean Kavanaugh is guilty of anything.

Jumping to conclusions serves no purpose. I think most people here agree that the odds her story derails his confirmation are extremely long.

[ElNono]

I actually like liberals very much. I was a minority in law school. The guys I know debate more honestly. You can differ on opinions and still be civil. I think I have been. I think we all have bias whether we acknowledge it or not. I hold Ford to a preponderance of evidence standard, which is what she’d be required to prove if she sued Kavanaugh in civil court. It’s a lower standard than a criminal standard. It’s basically does the evidence make it more likely than not that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh. And I think at this point, Ford can’t come close to that standard.

So while you may call me whatever you want, I have a standard that I use that is tried and true. I know, I know, this isn’t a court of law. But Kavanaugh has been accused of a crime and there must be some standard. If someone thinks I’m wrong, then explain your standard and explain why mine is biased and your stanard isn’t. That’s not directed at Nono, it’s at anyone.

And My position is Ford has no evidence from what I know, but I’m open to reconsider if she fills the gaps or gets some other evidence that can support her claim. I think a non verifiable accusation isn’t sufficient to keep someone off the bench.

My impression based on your posts in this thread, is certainly mine, and I'll readily admit it's a small sample. Plus, I actually encourage people that have an opinion, even if it's not my own, there's nothing wrong with that.

Heck, playing devil's advocate, even if it's not a position I hold, can be entertaining and a rich experience too. So if you felt that was a personal attack, I can assure you it was not.

I'm also in agreement with your last paragraph. And I think it's important to highlight (again) the fact that you're not against giving Ms Ford the benefit of the doubt, even if you personally feel the most likely outcome is that she can't prove the claim.

[ElNono]

An FBI investigation will take easily at least a month, if not more. Time just doesn't work out, IMO.

What an FBI investigation would've prevented is the public circus.

[Cry Havoc]

I disagree - imho, that bolded statement is an opinion (not fact) - yours, not mine.

You see cd98 as biased. (In this thread), I see him as bending over backward trying to be fair.

OTOH, I see CryHavoc as biased (in this thread). Maybe you see him as bending over backward trying to be fair.

BTW, I try to disassociate posts from posters - easier to not hold grudges/remember past disagreements. Of course, this is easier for some than others.

Might I remind you that ducks - if, as you imply, is without a brain - was the only one on this board who correctly believed that Trump would win that election.

I admit to being biased. When did I ever say that I wasn't?

Someone who admits and is aware of their bias is far more intellectually honest than someone who says they're unbiased when they're far from it.

cd98 is more reasonable than many of the right wing posters in this thread but he does not appear to be in any way even close to neutral. I laud him for being able to actually hold a conversation but I would still put him solidly on the red side of the spectrum. If there's someone in the thread that approaches neutral IMO it's ElNono -- But I don't know about his political leanings, I'm just surmising from his posts here.

[boutons_deux]

According to the New Yorker:

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.

The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University.

The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it.

Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week

and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation.

“This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanagh.

It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said.

An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

After six days of consulting with her attorney and going over her recollections,

Deborah Ramirez

says that “she remembers

Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party,

thrust his penis in her face, and

caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away,”

according to the New Yorker report.

https://www.mediaite.com/uncategoriz...gh-allegation/

Godly Jesuit education

[djohn2oo8]

[rmt]

An FBI investigation will take easily at least a month, if not more. Time just doesn't work out, IMO.

What an FBI investigation would've prevented is the public circus.

I disagree on the circus. That's sure to bring up questions of who (and how) in the FBI is investigating - shades of Hillary's email investigation.

[Cry Havoc]

An FBI investigation will take easily at least a month, if not more. Time just doesn't work out, IMO.

What an FBI investigation would've prevented is the public circus.

Man, if only they had actually vetted him properly, maybe they wouldn't have to deal with this stuff now.

How much do you wanna bet the GOP either knew nothing of the "100 keg quest", or they figured they could ram it through before anyone got wind of it?

[djohn2oo8]

[Cry Havoc]

Oof. Not looking good for Kavanaugh.

[djohn2oo8]

[boutons_deux]

Michael Avenatti: ‘I Represent a Woman with Credible Information Regarding Judge Kavanaugh’

https://www.mediaite.com/uncategoriz...dge-kavanaugh/

When It Rains, It S!

[Winehole23]

How much do you wanna bet the GOP either knew nothing of the "100 keg quest", or they figured they could ram it through before anyone got wind of it?

I bet you they knew about it. Preppy overindulgence hardly comes as a surprise.

Would that be disqualifying for you?

[djohn2oo8]

[Cry Havoc]

I bet you they knew about it. Preppy overindulgence hardly comes as a surprise.

Would that be disqualifying for you?

No, partying wouldn't be, but it should at least raise some eyebrows and at least give them pause. Vetters are supposed to dig into that kind of thing and pull out anything that might cause this kind of cluster during a nomination. Now they're caught with their pants down, and they look incredibly sloppy. If they can't nominate a SC Justice properly it calls into question their leadership skills. This should have been the stone cold lock of the Presidency. Instead, here we are.

[Nathan89]

How can you tell she has no proof, or her story is non believable if you haven't even heard it yet? And, the fact that somebody would give her the benefit of the doubt until she tells her story doesn't automatically mean Kavanaugh is guilty of anything.

Jumping to conclusions serves no purpose. I think most people here agree that the odds her story derails his confirmation are extremely long.

Isn't her story already circulated via a letter? I've certainly read that. Which is not unbelievable but I'm not going to factor it in if she doesn't have proof. Which is something she will not have. Everyone else involved already made me doubt the event even more.

I'm not speculating on those odds. I could easily see optics detailing the nomination despite there not being anything of substance coming out. I mean the smear campaign is pretty thick from the lowlifes. Like the Dem Sen who has determined his guilt based off his decisions as a judge. So this story without proof could easily derail him.

[boutons_deux]

"they look incredibly sloppy. "

in whatever vetting, K would have denied, hidden everything, putting the vetters in a position of considering him a liar.

If Avenatti's victim goes public, that would be the 3rd strike for K.

But, with Repugs, 15+ women on video exposing Trash as sexual predator didn't stop him.

[DarrinS]

[Reck]

LOL