Live Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

[JPie]

If they agree to this one week and then come back with "we need more time." Because it is a delay tactic.

Given your background in law enforcement, is it your professional opinion that one week is enough to investigate all allegations against Kavanaugh? Is it best practice to limit the scope of an investigation based on an arbitrary time limit?

 

[redwood66]

This investigation will take statements. That's it. There is nothing else to investigate because there is no actual evidence or corroboration.

 

[Dancing Fire]

If it happens it should be as Flake suggested - limited in scope to these allegations and limited in time. If the Dems do not hold to that then they are exposed for what they are.

They already have. Delay, delay...

 

[JPie]

This investigation will take statements. That's it. There is nothing else to investigate because there is no actual evidence or corroboration.

That is depressing, considering the implications for countless cases of sexual assault. Unless a guy does it on camera, or in front of witnesses who are willing to speak up, then he'll most likely get away with it.

 

[redwood66]

That is depressing, considering the implications for countless cases of sexual assault. Unless a guy does it on camera, or in front of witnesses who are willing to speak up, then he'll most likely get away with it.

What is it you think they are going to find? The parties have already made statements on record. Sexual assault is horrific and I don't know if this situation has made the problem worse or better. The only positive can be coming to the middle of the problem where everyone recognizes the hesitance of victims to come forward and also the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Why is it the democratic party's job to raise the bar? It's the republicans who nominate. How do we even know if democrats offered a name? you think Trump would have accepted ANY nominee from a democrat? I gotta bridge for ya.

Why should he? Did Obama asked the Reps to pick a nominee for the Supreme Court when he was the POTUS?

When did the democrats say they refused to to consider Kavanaugh?

The Ds say they would vote NO on any of Trump's nominee no matter who he picks.

 

[Dancing Fire]

If it takes a month for the FBI to do a thorough investigation how is that a big deal? This is a lifetime position we are talking about. I realize they are allowing a week. Some of your comments amaze me.

How about wait till the next Dem. Prez to take office?

 

[Matata]

There is nothing else to investigate because there is no actual evidence or corroboration.

Several of kav's contemporaries, including the woman he identified as being a lifelong friend (can't remember her name) have been quoted in the media stating kav is lying about his drinking and blackouts. Deborah Ramirez is allegedly willing to meet with the FBI re: kav waiving his penis in her face. I can't exactly remember if she said there were witnesses but it may be possible to prove the party took place, that he was there and that he did what she claims. If he is exposed as a liar, it would have a big impact on the credibility of his testimony yesterday. Perhaps nothing revealed by the new investigation would change his confirmation but at this point, having him proved as truthful or a liar and having that on record would suffice for me.

 

[JPie]

What is it you think they are going to find? The parties have already made statements on record. Sexual assault is horrific and I don't know if this situation has made the problem worse or better. The only positive can be coming to the middle of the problem where everyone recognizes the hesitance of victims to come forward and also the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I would hope that they find the truth. Kavanaugh and Ford have made statements, but Mark Judge should be interviewed by the FBI. Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick should be interviewed, as well as any witnesses they could name.

 

[redwood66]

Several of kav's contemporaries, including the woman he identified as being a lifelong friend (can't remember her name) have been quoted in the media stating kav is lying about his drinking and blackouts. Deborah Ramirez is allegedly willing to meet with the FBI re: kav waiving his penis in her face. I can't exactly remember if she said there were witnesses but it may be possible to prove the party took place, that he was there and that he did what she claims. If he is exposed as a liar, it would have a big impact on the credibility of his testimony yesterday. Perhaps nothing revealed by the new investigation would change his confirmation but at this point, having him proved as truthful or a liar and having that on record would suffice for me.

And there are people saying it didn't happen. So if they are all interviewed we will have statements that are conflicting.

 

[Calliecake]

That is depressing, considering the implications for countless cases of sexual assault. Unless a guy does it on camera, or in front of witnesses who are willing to speak up, then he'll most likely get away with it.

Look at the Brock Turner case. Two young men walked up and found him with the woman he was sexually assaulting. He received three months prison time. What did we hear about Brock Turner.... He was a good student and was on the swim team.

The take away is people are multifaceted. Some people do good and very bad things. You can be a good student and sexually assault someone. How is this so difficult to understand?

Women need to believed like men are.

 

[redwood66]

I would hope that they find the truth. Kavanaugh and Ford have made statements, but Mark Judge should be interviewed by the FBI. Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick should be interviewed, as well as any witnesses they could name.

Is your definition of the truth that he did it? Or is it possible in your mind that he didn't?

 

[Matata]

And there are people saying it didn't happen. So if they are all interviewed we will have statements that are conflicting.

That depends. Kav repeatedly stated yesterday that Ford's 4 witnesses stated that the event didn't happen. When their statements were read aloud this morning, it revealed that they had no recollection of the event but none stated that the event did not happen. That's very different and significant. Also Kav delighted in repeating that Ford's female friend (Keizer sp?) claimed it didn't happen when, in her statement, she said she didn't recollect the event but she "believed Ford." These are nuances that are important.

 

[Matata]

And, regardless of their reliability, Kav should take a lie detector test. And Ford should take a new one. Let's see if her results vary and what Kav's shows. I'm not slavering for him to be found guilty or unmasked as a liar. I am hoping that we get closer to truth on this issue than we have thus far.

 

[redwood66]

That depends. Kav repeatedly stated yesterday that Ford's 4 witnesses stated that the event didn't happen. When their statements were read aloud this morning, it revealed that they had no recollection of the event but none stated that the event did not happen. That's very different and significant. Also Kav delighted in repeating that Ford's female friend (Keizer sp?) claimed it didn't happen when, in her statement, she said she didn't recollect the event but she "believed Ford." These are nuances that are important.

Keyser also said she has never met him. Are these witnesses going to have a recollection after saying they don't? I don't want to argue about it but I don't think there will be a revelation either.

 

[JPie]

Is your definition of the truth that he did it? Or is it possible in your mind that he didn't?

I think that he’s innocent until proven otherwise, and the allegations must be investigated by the FBI.

 

[Matata]

Keyser also said she has never met him.

That doesn't mean he wasn't at a party they both attended and it doesn't mean he did or did not abuse Ford. None of my friends who know me only in adulthood have met either of my abusers but they believe I was abused.

 

[Calliecake]

And there are people saying it didn't happen. So if they are all interviewed we will have statements that are conflicting.

Let’s wait to hear what the FBI investigation finds. Many Yale classmates describe a very different person then how Kavanaugh described himself. If he lied under oath about that, what else is he lying about. His temperament gave many of us pause regarding him being a Supreme Court Judge. He was rude, belligerent and aggressive.

 

[Calliecake]

It’s a limited scope investigation. One thing I found interesting is if a woman came forward tomorrow with sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, this would not be included in the scope of the investigations current mandate.

 

[mary poppins]

The Ds say they would vote NO on any of Trump's nominee no matter who he picks.

Oh, do you think that is improper or even outrageous, DF? You have GOT to be kidding me. Either that or you have a short memory. Let's remember 2016. The GOP stonewalled Obama's pick by ignoring it, not having any hearing, debate or vote even though Obama picked a moderate, older, white, male with better credentials than Kavanaugh, and who was on the GOP's preferred list. They blatantly told Obama he would not be putting anyone on the SC. As a result, the Supreme Court, having only eight Justices, was crippled and several cases during the relevant time resulted in deadlock. How is that for justice or the benefit of the people of the US? Peoples' cases, which were deemed important enough to be accepted by the Supreme Court (a very rare occurrence) went through the whole process of trial court, probably mediation or non=binding arbitration, an appeal, and then another appeal just to die there.

What a bunch of hypocrites. At least the Dems have gone through the process and considered Trump's selections and are willing to continue doing so.

"But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void."
In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

---

What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now
June 29, 20185:00 AM ET

So much has happened in the past two years that many may have forgotten what happened to Merrick Garland in the spring of 2016.

But filling in that recollection goes some distance in explaining a lot of what has happened since.

To recap, Garland was nominated to fill the 2016 vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death that February of Justice Antonin Scalia, an icon of conservative jurisprudence.

President Barack Obama quickly named Merrick Garland, then 63, to fill the seat. Garland had long been considered a prime prospect for the high court, serving as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — a frequent source of justices that is sometimes called the "little Supreme Court."

Widely regarded as a moderate, Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."

Supreme Court picks have often been controversial. There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes. But to ignore the nominee entirely, as if no vacancy existed?

There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. No Democratic president had made an appointment while Republicans held the Senate since 1895.

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.

The court had to convene that October with only eight justices, divided often between the four appointed by Democrats and the four appointed by Republicans. Short-handed, the court deadlocked on a number of issues and declined to hear others.

Democrats were outraged, of course, but were short of tools with which to respond. As the minority party — following a disastrous midterm in 2014 — they could not force a committee or a floor vote. They gave speeches, and they urged voters to turn out in protest in the November elections.

Scores of scholars — law professors, historians and political scientists — urged the Senate to at least have a process for Garland as a duly appointed nominee with impeccable qualifications. But some lawyers and academics pointed out that the Constitution empowered the Senate to "advise and consent" but did not require it do so. (Some adding that they thought the Senate still ought to do so.)

A federal lawsuit was filed to compel McConnell to hold a vote on Garland. It was thrown out because a judge said the plaintiff, as an ordinary voter, had no standing to sue.

For his part, McConnell argued that the Democrats had at least contemplated a similar tactic back in 1992, when Obama's vice president, Joe Biden, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and mused about urging President George H.W. Bush to withhold any nominees to the high court until the end of the "political season."

At the time, the Senate had just been through a bruising battle over the 1991 confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas.

As it happened, no vacancy occurred in 1992. But McConnell and others referred to the "Biden rule" nonetheless in justifying the blockade of Garland.

With or without such justification, McConnell's blockade was doubly effective just as a power move.

First, it prevented the seating of a Democratic president's choice. Had he been considered, Garland might have pulled a few majority-party members across the aisle. Supreme Court nominees nearly always win at least some votes from the party opposing the president, and Garland had a strong law-and-order history. Had he performed well on TV, voting against him might have been harder — especially for Republicans seeking re-election in competitive states.

Second, and more important, the vacancy became a powerful motivator for conservative voters in the fall. Many saw a vote for Trump as a means to keep Scalia's seat away from the liberals and give the appointment to someone who promised to name anti-abortion justices supportive of Second Amendment gun rights.

Again and again in the fall, candidate Donald Trump treated the Supreme Court as a touchstone, sometimes simply shouting the two words to his rally crowds. And indeed, polling has shown the court vacancy did mean a great deal to Trump voters, especially those religious conservatives who had personal misgivings about him.

Now, of course, McConnell's calculus has changed. With a slim but steady majority of the Senate, and Vice President Mike Pence available to break a tie, McConnell feels confident he can confirm Trump's nominee and get his people out to vote again — this time, in gratitude.

Democrats see all this as what their Senate leader Chuck Schumer called "the height of hypocrisy." But will that move voters in their direction more now than it did in 2016 or motivate the disaffected within their base?

Some say the Democrats hurt themselves two years ago, first with a nominee who would not excite the party's base. Whatever his evident virtues, Garland was another white male who, as a 63-year-old moderate, could not promise decades as a liberal warrior.

There is also ample evidence that the Supreme Court motivates conservatives more than it does progressives. That has often been the case since the Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision in 1973 launched an era of social issue backlash that split the old Democratic coalition.

It also has been argued that the Democrats caved to McConnell's pressure tactics in the Garland case. They should have found a way to force a vote or "shut down the Senate" to light a spark.

But Democrats are generally averse to government shutdown strategies, especially considering the potential blowback on their own candidates. In 2016, it was still the Obama era and the Democrats' executive administration. Shutdowns rarely help the party perceived to be in power, even if it's not really in control.

So it was safer, in the judgments of spring and summer 2016, to let the Republicans look intransigent and unfair and hope somebody noticed. Perhaps the injustice to Garland would help Democrats win seats in supposedly blue states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and even red ones such as Missouri and North Carolina.

Instead, the country moved on. There were highly contentious primaries in both parties and plenty of other news to preoccupy everyone.

Besides, and lest we forget, the Senate Democrats and most everyone else thought they had an insurance policy on the Scalia vacancy. The assumption was that Hillary Clinton would be elected. Clinton, who did, after all, win the popular vote by several million votes, might even have helped carry in a Democratic Senate. And then she could have renominated Garland, or someone younger and more liberal.

As it sorted out, the Democrats were cautious, overconfident and misinformed about the mood of the country. They lost in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Missouri and North Carolina, winding up still in the minority.

That left them powerless to stop McConnell from eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017, paving the way to confirmation of Trump's first choice and probably his second.

And that is the predicament in which they find themselves today.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/6244...errick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

 

[mary poppins]

Under pressure, Trump orders FBI to investigate Kavanaugh amid sex misconduct allegations
No Senate confirmation vote will be held on the Supreme Court nominee until after the probe is completed in one week.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...s-kavanaugh-decision-friday-afternoon-n914676

 

[Calliecake]

Trump took to tweeting the following tonight.

Just started tonight, our 7th FBI Investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He will someday be recognized as a truly great justice of the United States Supreme Court!


This idiot has no idea what the FBI investigation may find.

 

[redwood66]

We'll see what happens.

 

[Calliecake]

It certainly isn’t presidential to make such comments when an investigation is underway.

Everything Trump does is to further divide the country.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Oh, whatever. Like I said none of this will f***ing matter, and the people who never gave a **** will continue on, fat and happy, not giving a ****. The FBI won't find anything (because there's nothing that's going to be a smoking gun YES HE DID IT after all this time), she and millions of other women will have to live with their trauma, and Trump will grin his smarmy pussy-grabbing grin while Kavanaugh is confirmed. Oh well! That's the way it is and we gotta sit here and take it, right?

 

[partgypsy]

I thought it was interesting, talking to my Republican friend. He watched Ford's and kavanaughs testimony. His take: he believes her. From her testimony, and the fact she talked about it privately(with husband and therapist) years before this. Basicalky, hes done. He thinks they should move on to another pick.

 

[partgypsy]

I have to admit I was apprehensive to ask, because we have very different views on a number of topics. He even said, it's obvious, she suffered.

 

[monarch64]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=503431636804261

 

[Tekate]

Hmm their words don't belie that they feel disgusted. Interpretation is up to the viewer though.

The looks on both of their faces and both saying they wished they had known about the allegations earlier during their statements before the vote this morning. Klobuchar explained that their committee gets information all the time that they investigate and we, the public, never hear about them, they are investigated confidentially to protect accuser and accused.

 

[partgypsy]

We probably will never know with 100% certainity what happened. But one was a credible witness, one was not. And often jurors are instructed as to weighing the credibility of the witness, even one lie is enough to discredit the witness. Kavanaughs discredited himself. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...8/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart