Live Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

[Calliecake]

It sounds like this whole investigation may be a sham. Multiple people are spoken to in any investigation. It’s being reported that Trump is telling the public that this is a thorough investigation while at the same time really limiting the scope and who can be interviewed by the FBI. Trump lies daily so how is anyone to believe anything he says.

Mitch MCConnell can making comments that Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the weekend seems so disingenuous considering no one knows what the FBI uncovered. Even if the republicans try to ram this confirmation thru with a very limited investigation, are they so stupid they think the press will not continue investigating?. There are some damn good reporters out there with journalistic integrity who will get to the truth, no matter what that is.

Trump coming out yesterday saying Kavanaugh had had “difficulties” with alcohol was also telling.

We are going down a very slippery slope when 1/2 country could care less about truth.

 

[AGBF]

Mitch MCConnell can making comments that Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the weekend seems so disingenuous considering no one knows what the FBI uncovered.

It is not disingenuous to say that Kavanaugh will be confirmed. That is being open about the Republicans' intentions: that the Republicans are intent on confirming Kavanaugh no matter what any investigation finds.

It is only disingenuous that Republicans attempt to make the American people believe that an actual investigation is taking place.

AGBF

 

[cmd2014]

I heard that the White House/Senate has limited the FBI from investigating the alcohol use issue - apparently they do not that it’s relevant whether Kavanagh lied under oath or not. Or if he lied under oath about that, what else he may not have been truthful about. I think my impression of all of this is that it’s just political theatre with no intention to find the truth or do the right thing (whatever that may be). I also don’t think that there’s any motivation to actually govern the country either. The only thing that seems to matter is ‘winning’ in a way that makes everybody lose. That’s been my impression of Mitch McConnell for years now. The whole system seems broken.

This is what I see, on both sides.

I'm saying this as a non-American, a non-Democrat, and someone who watches primarily international news (although it is fair to say that as a whole, my country is much more liberal than yours): It seems to me that this obstructionist behaviour started with the Republicans under Mitch McConnell as soon as the Republicans got control of both houses. The message was loud and clear that their intention was to block Obama in every way humanly possible - government shutdowns, blocking the passing of any bills/legislature, and the blocking of any Supreme Court nominations/confirmations. To the detriment of the American people, the government, their own employees, and quite frankly the world (as instability in the US has a way of affecting everyone else). The democrats are taking a page from Mitch McConnell's book, for sure, although to a less detrimental effect given that they don't have power in either house right now, and the only way for them to be successful is to convince a republican that what the republican party is doing is ill advised in some way. But you can't ignore where the strategy initially came from, how long it has gone on, or how painful it has been for everyone involved. That is how history is likely to judge Mitch McConnell's legacy I suspect. Petulant obstructionism at the cost of your country. Even for things that politically didn't matter.

My impression is that the democrats at least are dying on hills that they care about, whether you agree with their positions or not. Their opposition to Kavanaugh as far as I can see even before the accusations of sexual impropriety was in relation to concerns regarding his views on executive power and the president being above the law, his position on environmental issues (which is likely to kill everyone on the planet if climate change is not addressed), and his position on women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and immigration - in other words, platform issues for the party. OTOH, the Republican party opposition to Obama's nomination appears to have been that Obama nominated him. So while I agree that both parties are not working well with each other right now, I'm not sure that the effect or the reasons have been equal.

 

[OboeGal]

I'm saying this as a non-American, a non-Democrat, and someone who watches primarily international news (although it is fair to say that as a whole, my country is much more liberal than yours): It seems to me that this obstructionist behaviour started with the Republicans under Mitch McConnell as soon as the Republicans got control of both houses. The message was loud and clear that their intention was to block Obama in every way humanly possible - government shutdowns, blocking the passing of any bills/legislature, and the blocking of any Supreme Court nominations/confirmations. To the detriment of the American people, the government, their own employees, and quite frankly the world (as instability in the US has a way of affecting everyone else). The democrats are taking a page from Mitch McConnell's book, for sure, although to a less detrimental effect given that they don't have power in either house right now, and the only way for them to be successful is to convince a republican that what the republican party is doing is ill advised in some way. But you can't ignore where the strategy initially came from, how long it has gone on, or how painful it has been for everyone involved. That is how history is likely to judge Mitch McConnell's legacy I suspect. Petulant obstructionism at the cost of your country. Even for things that politically didn't matter.

My impression is that the democrats at least are dying on hills that they care about, whether you agree with their positions or not. Their opposition to Kavanaugh as far as I can see even before the accusations of sexual impropriety was in relation to concerns regarding his views on executive power and the president being above the law, his position on environmental issues (which is likely to kill everyone on the planet if climate change is not addressed), and his position on women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and immigration - in other words, platform issues for the party. OTOH, the Republican party opposition to Obama's nomination appears to have been that Obama nominated him. So while I agree that both parties are not working well with each other right now, I'm not sure that the effect or the reasons have been equal.

Well-said. Thank you.

 

[Calliecake]

Everything you wrote @cmd2014 is spot on.

 

[mary poppins]

@cmd2014, I am impressed by your interest in and understanding of US politics (people, interests, branches of government and their roles). You are more knowledgeable than most Americans.

 

[mary poppins]

I 100% agree with this assessment. I also think the FBI "investigation" is going to be just as incomplete and flawed not because of the FBI, but because of the restraints on the FBI.

GOP prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's critique of Christine Blasey Ford is incomplete and flawed
It's one thing to misleadingly frame Dr. Ford’s allegations as a case of “he said, she said.” It's something else to ignore what “he” actually said.
Oct.02.2018 / 2:43 PM EDT

Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona state prosecutor hired by the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct questioning during the Judge Brett Kavanaugh hearing on Sept. 27, has released a memo analyzing the sexual assault allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Mitchell concludes that no “reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee” and that the evidence was not “sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” As former federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who prosecuted and supervised cases involving human and sex trafficking as well as child exploitation, we find her analysis to be incomplete and deeply flawed.

As an initial matter, many questions exist about Mitchell’s claimed independence, including whether and how much she is being paid, and by whom; what Senate Republicans talked to her about before the hearing; and why she ceased asking questions shortly after Kavanaugh began testifying.

When senators question a witness at a hearing, their political biases are obvious. The same is true when prosecutors question witnesses in court — their client is “the people.” But in this unprecedented scenario, these biases were far less clear. Indeed, although Mitchell cross-examined Ford on behalf of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee — quite unsuccessfully in our view — the committee chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, cut off her questioning of Kavanaugh shortly after his testimony began. Notably, this happened right after Mitchell questioned Kavanaugh about the possibly incriminating July 1 entry on his calendar. The end result was that Mitchell did not question Kavanaugh in the same way that she did Ford, nor did the Republicans make any attempt to do it for her. This alone severely undermines her assessment.

Moreover, we are stunned that a career prosecutor like Mitchell would not acknowledge that, at least prior to the hearing, no meaningful, independent investigation had yet been conducted. Nor did she call for such an investigation. We can confidently say that no “reasonable prosecutor” in this country — state or federal — would ever assess the merits of a case without conducting a basic investigation. Such an investigation would always include interviewing any other persons alleged to have been in the room at the time of the incident in question.

A reasonable prosecutor evaluating this case would attempt to corroborate the stories of both Ford and Kavanaugh by interviewing other witnesses, tracking down alleged witness Mark Judge’s employment records and by drilling down on Kavanaugh’s calendar to see if it could corroborate the party in question. These are all basic investigative steps that would need to be completed before assessing the credibility of allegations such as Ford’s. And yet none of these steps were taken before Mitchell wrote her memo.

Mitchell’s memo also fails to address a central question that any reasonable prosecutor would examine: motive. There can be no doubt that Ford’s life has been turned upside down — no one would want to endure what she has since her allegations have been made public. Moreover, when she first told her couples therapist about the assault — prompted by her irrational but understandable desire to feel secure in her own home — Kavanaugh was not, contrary to Mitchell’s assessment, on the short list of Supreme Court candidates. On the other hand, Kavanaugh has said numerous times that being on the Supreme Court was a lifelong ambition of his, and it became clear that the only thing standing between him and that seat are the current allegations against him.

Similarly, any reasonable prosecutor would also weigh the fact that Ford has repeatedly requested an FBI investigation and has submitted to a lie-detector test, while Kavanaugh repeatedly refused to directly call for either despite being pressed at the hearing to ask for an investigation. Mitchell’s failure to even address these issues is stunning.

Worst of all, the Mitchell memo does not even address Kavanaugh’s testimony. It is one thing for a purportedly neutral prosecutor to misleadingly frame Ford’s allegations as a case of “he said, she said.” It is something else altogether to ignore what “he” actually said. Mitchell does not address Kavanaugh’s evasiveness, his combativeness, his anger, his highly suspect answers to questions about whether he had ever blacked out from drinking or his suspect responses to questions about specific references in his yearbook.

As all prosecutors know, small lies matter, particularly where the small lies are meant to protect an unequivocal denial. In this case, Kavanaugh’s denial would be rendered essentially meaningless if he admitted that he blacked out in high school from alcohol. Moreover, in our experience as prosecutors, the witnesses and defendants who thumped their chest the most were not doing so because they were falsely accused; rather, they were the most likely to be lying. They were relying on passion and emotion — not the facts — to convince others of their truthfulness.

Even if you overlook the underlying issues with Mitchell’s memo, her assessment of the truthfulness of Ford’s testimony also suffers from obvious analytical flaws. Here are just a few examples:

• Mitchell concludes that “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault occurred,”including assertions Ford made about the timing of the event which changed slightly between her original letter and her Senate testimony. Anyone who has dealt regularly with victims of traumatic crime knows that date specificity is challenging, particularly when the event was 36 years ago, and that people’s memories improve the more they think about a particular incident and frame it differently. Even Mitchell acknowledged that “it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates.” Yet, she completely ignores this in her conclusion. What’s remarkable in our view is actually Ford’s consistency about the time frame — the attack happened during a summer while she was a teenager. Anything more or less than that is just unrealistic nitpicking.
• Mitchell concludes that Ford “struggled” to identify Kavanaugh as the assailant by name. The critique here is apparently that Ford did not tell her therapists the name of her attacker. As Mitchell surely must recognize, the identity of one’s attacker isn’t relevant in therapy; rather, the focus is on the attack and its emotional impact, not the identity of the individual. In fact, Ford’s explanation for why she told her husband about the assault in 2012 — because she wanted two front doors in her renovated home due to PTSD she connects back to the attack — was so powerful and so sensible that this unfounded line of analysis from Mitchell reeks of desperation and overreach.
• Many of Mitchell’s critiques of Ford’s testimony are related to her arguing that Ford has “no memory of key details of the night in question.” Mitchell’s definition of “key details” is surprising for a prosecutor of so many years. One doesn’t need to be a trained investigator or a psychologist to understand how human memory works. Ford remembers the traumatic events of the night — the stairs, the bed, “the laughter, the uproarious laughter” — not the superfluous, secondary details of who else was there or how she got home. It is the job of investigators — not crime victims — to fill in the blanks or refute them. Surely Mitchell knows this.
• A major point in Mitchell’s memo is the assertion that Ford’s account of the assault “has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended” the party. This is result-oriented wordsmithing. Mitchell, more than any senator, should know that letters of denial sent by lawyers are no substitute for thorough questioning under penalty of perjury. Regardless, others not involved in the assault would have no reason to remember an otherwise unremarkable night 36 years ago. But most important, everyone other than Brett Kavanaugh — including Mark Judge — did not refute Ford’s testimony; rather, they simply said they have no recollection of it. Thus, Mitchell’s reliance on a lack of corroboration is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst, because any prosecutor knows that individuals who did not witness the assault would have no reason to remember it. Further investigation is necessary to attempt to jog witnesses’ memories or otherwise corroborate or refute the account. Without that, a lack of corroboration is meaningless.

Finally, Mitchell’s analysis ignores the fact that some corroboration already does exist. First, Kavanaugh’s own calendars show that during the time period Ford reported he socialized with the several of the key people she singles out. In fact, all of the boys that Dr. Ford can identify from that party were in Kavanaugh’s calendar on July 1, 1982. Second, both Kavanaugh and Ford’s families were members of a country club where Ford says she had been before the attack, which is consistent with her testimony that she was in her bathing suit during the attack. Third, statements in his own yearbook and by high school and college classmates point to a man who drank excessively and was an aggressive drunk, which is also consistent with Ford’s testimony and the nature of the assault. Finally, Ford’s statements in 2012 and 2013 are corroboration for her Senate testimony that would be admissible in a court of law.

Rachel Mitchell may be a very fine prosecutor. But her one-sided, misleading memo draws broad conclusions without any foundation, doing a great disservice not only to the reputation of prosecutors and trained investigators everywhere but also to this confirmation process.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...hell-s-critique-dr-ford-incomplete-ncna915896

 

[mary poppins]

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/brett-kavanaugh-bar-fight-ub40-concert-731781/

 

[Calliecake]

Michael Avenatti tweeted there is another person who witnessed some of the claims made by Julie Swetnick.

Supposedly more witnesses are coming forward.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Michael Avenatti tweeted there is another person who witnessed some of the claims made by Julie Swetnick.

Supposedly more witnesses are coming forward.

One of them could be Stormy.

 

[Ellen]

I'm saying this as a non-American, a non-Democrat, and someone who watches primarily international news (although it is fair to say that as a whole, my country is much more liberal than yours): It seems to me that this obstructionist behaviour started with the Republicans under Mitch McConnell as soon as the Republicans got control of both houses. The message was loud and clear that their intention was to block Obama in every way humanly possible - government shutdowns, blocking the passing of any bills/legislature, and the blocking of any Supreme Court nominations/confirmations. To the detriment of the American people, the government, their own employees, and quite frankly the world (as instability in the US has a way of affecting everyone else). The democrats are taking a page from Mitch McConnell's book, for sure, although to a less detrimental effect given that they don't have power in either house right now, and the only way for them to be successful is to convince a republican that what the republican party is doing is ill advised in some way. But you can't ignore where the strategy initially came from, how long it has gone on, or how painful it has been for everyone involved. That is how history is likely to judge Mitch McConnell's legacy I suspect. Petulant obstructionism at the cost of your country. Even for things that politically didn't matter.

My impression is that the democrats at least are dying on hills that they care about, whether you agree with their positions or not. Their opposition to Kavanaugh as far as I can see even before the accusations of sexual impropriety was in relation to concerns regarding his views on executive power and the president being above the law, his position on environmental issues (which is likely to kill everyone on the planet if climate change is not addressed), and his position on women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and immigration - in other words, platform issues for the party. OTOH, the Republican party opposition to Obama's nomination appears to have been that Obama nominated him. So while I agree that both parties are not working well with each other right now, I'm not sure that the effect or the reasons have been equal.

Interesting to hear how it seems from afar!

 

[soxfan]

THIS is the guy you conservatives are backing. Whether you voted for him or not, THIS is the "thing" running our country. And he can't even keep his story straight.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=244391406249240

 

[Calliecake]

One of them could be Stormy.

Hey @Dancing Fire , Did you hear Trump tried to pull his son Eric into hiding the whole Stormy mess. He is such a great father he tried to drag his son into this. .

Doesn’t it bother you that Trump lied and broke laws to not pay taxes, while you and I have always had to pay them. Cheating and lying to save yourself multimillions of dollars is little worse than a poor person spending their food stamp money on better tuna. Don’t you think?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Doesn’t it bother you that Trump lied and broke laws to not pay taxes, while you and I have always had to pay them. Cheating and lying to save yourself multimillions of dollars is little worse than a poor person spending their food stamp money on better tuna. Don’t you think?

If that is true then I don't understand why the IRS let him get away with it maybe he took a lesson from Timothy Geithner.

 

[soxfan]

Deflect deflect deflect. I don't know why you bother with him, Calliecake.

 

[Calliecake]

If that is true then I don't understand why the IRS let him get away with it maybe he took a lesson from Timothy Geithner.

You have literally been complaining for YEARS about the family on food stamps you witnessed buying tuna.
And yet Trump avoiding paying taxes for years is no big deal.

I don’t either @soxfan.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Deflect deflect deflect. I don't know why you bother with him, Calliecake.

b/c what DF say is true.

 

[Dancing Fire]

You have literally been complaining for YEARS about the family on food stamps you witnessed buying tuna.
And yet Trump avoiding paying taxes for years is no big deal.

It was lobsters I'm ok with buying tunas . Anyway, if Trump is cheating on his taxes the IRS should investigate and make him pay.

 

[soxfan]

. Anyway, if Trump is cheating on his taxes the IRS should investigate and make him pay.

OMG. Do DF and I actually AGREE on something??????

 

[OreoRosies86]

It was lobsters I'm ok with buying tunas . Anyway, if Trump is cheating on his taxes the IRS should investigate and make him pay.

It was abalone, DF. Can't keep your story straight huh? Care to call in some witnesses?

 

[OreoRosies86]

 

[Calliecake]

Oh course it was abalone tuna. DF literally complained about this for YEARS as his BIG example of welfare fraud.

 

[Dancing Fire]

It was abalone, DF. Can't keep your story straight huh? Care to call in some witnesses?

It was lobsters and abalones (two separate stories) back then you were not on PS.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...happen-in-this-beloved-country-of-ours.92868/

 

[House Cat]

It was abalone, DF. Can't keep your story straight huh? Care to call in some witnesses?

Wait!! I thought it was lobster! Or was it bullsh!t?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Wait!! I thought it was lobster! Or was it bullsh!t?

You are correct...no BS!

 

[OreoRosies86]

Wait!! I thought it was lobster! Or was it bullsh!t?

Fake news!!!

 

[OreoRosies86]

It was lobsters and abalones (two separate stories) back then you were not on PS.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...happen-in-this-beloved-country-of-ours.92868/

I'll have to file this under Things That Totally Happened

 

[partgypsy]

I know that people whose minds are made up won't read, but this was written by someone who has worked with Kavanaugh, who before the testimony was supportive of his confirmation.

From the standard jury instruction: ‘If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness.’”


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

 

[partgypsy]

More than 1200 law professors have now signed a letter stating they are against Kavanaugh being confirmed as SCOTUS. Their statement is based on their judgement that he does not have the judicial temperament, nor the impartiality to be able to serve. As far as I know, this is unprecedented.

The thing is, Trump will choose a judge. He has two years before another presidential election. Just why they are digging in their heels for this unfit candidate, I don't understand.

 

[the_mother_thing]

More than 1200 law professors have now signed a letter stating they are against Kavanaugh being confirmed as SCOTUS. Their statement is based on their judgement that he does not have the judicial temperament, nor the impartiality to be able to serve. As far as I know, this is unprecedented.

The thing is, Trump will choose a judge. He has two years before another presidential election. Just why they are digging in their heels for this unfit candidate, I don't understand.

Seeing how those in academia have responded to all things Chump/Republican, I have zero interest in their opinions ... especially when they call for “white men to be castrated and fed to swine”.