Ford - Kavanaugh Hearings 9-27-18

The way I look at this situation is from the perspective of the president's political difficulties. I believe that Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for SCOTUS because of his stated view that a sitting president should not be subject to indictment. Indictment is not impeachment, but it could be part of the mix in the initiation of an impeachment process.

The element of time is very important in the background of what we have been watching in this confirmation process. It is highly likely that the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot issue subpoenas without a vote of the committee. The Republican majority on the committee would guarantee the loss of any vote to subpoena any of the more potentially dangerous witnesses against Kavanaugh. If they had been subpoenaed, there would be "procedural" delay built into enforcing the subpoena. This means that the confirmation process would have dragged on, possibly past the time of the mid term elections.

This would be hazardous for Trump's position and probably fatal for the Kavenaugh nomination if the Democrats were to take control of the Senate.

So, despite the righteous indignation and protestations from the Republicans about bending over backward to hear hostile witnesses against Kavanaugh, who failed to come before the committee, the fact is that they really didn't want to hear those witnesses and didn't do what they had the power to do to compel their appearance, for larger political strategic reasons.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Identified
I am tired of this mantra that Ford had nothing to gain from this. She got to be hero of the Metoo movement. She got tons of attention and sympathy and respect (IMO her driving reason). She stalled and possibly derailed a nomination. Her gains have far outweighed her losses of what? Having to stay in a hotel she isn't paying for?

Go ahead and tell us you name and address and see how you like being known (note: Please don't, the point is to give you some perspective of what she's going through). Living in fear (from the death threats among other things) is a terrible experience and I shake my head at anyone who so easily claims there's no hardship involved without having experienced it themselves. You're not even somebody in any kind of movement, and you're too afraid to name yourself for just the crowd here on ATS, so imagine what the rest of her life is going to be like.

IShe might have gotten death threats. I wouldn't know since she hasn't proven that either.

I'm sure she had hardships but what I'm saying is her gains - in her own mind - her gains outweighed the hardships.

Just like an addict who is ruining their life but keeps doing it because they are getting something out of it and that is more, in their own head, than the losses.

It doesn't matter if you or I think the hardships outweigh it because it only matters that SHE gains in HER mind. And I contend she is someone who thrives and lives on attention and sympathy. Her own husband said as much in an interview.

My personal life is not the issue.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
From the hearing:

GRAHAM:
Here’s my understanding, if you lived a good life people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has

KAVANAUGH: For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament. That’s why I have the well unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar Association

Last Night:

The American Bar Association called Thursday evening for postponing a vote on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court until sexual assault allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford and others are investigated by the F.B.I.
www.nytimes.com...

Well the Bar association is political as it gets these days.remember the prosecutor in the freddy grey case?

a reply to: soberbacchus

The GOP has argued at times in the past that the ABA has a bias against some of their nominees. That the ABA waited until now to make that statement is likely to draw a response from the GOP that this is just another attempt to delay by allies of the left.

Not saying who is right, wrong, etc, just that it's how the GOP is very likely to respond to that.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Whether or not Kavanaugh is confirmed is irrelevant. Sexual assault allegations can be brought against a SC justice (they are not immune to the law nor prosecution).

It doesn't compute in my brain how Republican senators can say with a straight face they believe Ford and they believe Kavanaugh. They are 100% contradictory positions. Its effectively admitting they believe Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford (along with Kavanaugh not assaulting Ford - enjoy that logic), but that it shouldn't disqualify him from being a SC justice.

They are not contradictory.
They said they believe Mrs. Ford was Assaulted.
They said they believe Kav. is not the one who assaulted her.

They are, because Ford said she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, and you and most other here are choosing to say she's wrong but in some wackadoo twist of idiot logic then turn around with a straight face and say you believe her and she's telling the truth. It doesn't work that way. What you should actually be saying is, 'I believe her sincerity, but I don't believe her story'. Its just the optics look/sound way worse to so boldly side against a potential sexual assault victim that you and most other want to have your cake and eat it to by 'saying you believe her story' but that all details are wrong/incorrect (which is expressly not believing her account).

You do know that its been scientifically proven that memories become faulty after 10 or more years right? Her mind has jumbled up her memories. without forensic evidence its he said she said.

I actually agree that memory is a really difficult thing to quantify accurately as to veracity from one's own perspective, but the same argument goes for Kavanaugh as well, so it doesn't change the dynamic. The ultimate truth is Ford believes she was sexually assaulted, there is no statute of limitations for her to bring these charges, and the appropriate authorities owe it to her at least to investigate and find out if there is any corroborating or exculpatory evidence to be found.


The nomination to SC is already a guarantee'd hyper-conservative anti-abortion justice anyways, so whether its Kavanaugh or someone else the Republican's nominate is irrelevant. The optics however for having someone with potentially multiple sexual assault allegations/investigations sitting atop the highest court of the land is somewhat problematic, as is Kavanaugh's call out last night to Democratic senators that he believes there's a conspiracy vendetta being enacted on him and he's going to 'give it back' in kind is practically tantamount to admitting political bias (which would mean he'd be obligated to recuse himself on a large number of cases that have political implications). This is something that chief justice John Roberts called out/was worried about and has gotten little attention.

originally posted by: yuppa

Well the Bar association is political as it gets these days.

Then Graham and Kavanaugh should not have been repeatedly and prominently citing the ABA as reason to support Kavenaugh.

You can't have it both ways. First citing them as proof of his independence and qualifications, then saying their opinion is partisan and worthless.

GRAHAM:
Here’s my understanding, if you lived a good life people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has

KAVANAUGH: For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament. That’s why I have the well unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar Association

Last Night:

The American Bar Association called Thursday evening for postponing a vote on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court until sexual assault allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford and others are investigated by the F.B.I.
www.nytimes.com...

The two are not mutually exclusive ideas;

The American Bar Association has not changed its rating of Kavanaugh.

There statment last night is a condamnation of the process not of Kavanaugh.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Well here is the difference. Brett kept detailed records of his life since then so he can refeer back to those. Its a tradition his father started and he also does it. who would had guessed it would save his arse?

If they could just bus in a few hundred more protesters...

a reply to: soberbacchus

They used several sources.
Just because someone got to a contact at the ABA, so what?
Just accept it, the mask is off and the game is up. No one in their right mind is going to believe anything the left has to say again.

LOL

They're bringing up things that they forgot to yesterday.

🤦

Senator Flake was cornered on an elevator by women asking if he believed Brett Kavanaugh. He dummied up.

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: Wayfarer

No prosecutor would bring this case.
There is no evidence.
With that in mind, one would have to be crazy to punish the accused.

Personally, I am not sure who to believe. Kavanaugh came across as quite aggressive yesterday and I could imagine him being that way when drunk and maybe doing something he would regret. But there has to be a standard of evidence, otherwise things move to a very dark place.

I said initially that this should never have been a consideration in the nomination hearings.
Ford should have been asked to make the decision on whether to go to the police - and even advised to do so. That way the police could have determined if there were any grounds to proceed. Even now she could do so and if it gets to trial and Kavanaugh is found guilty having been afforded proper due process, he can be impeached and removed from the bench.

The mess the Democrats made here by keeping this secret for political purposes to delay the nomination until after the midterms is the real issue here. They royally screwed up. They don't want to follow any rules, whether they be Senate rules, the rules of common decency, or even the Constitution.

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

They're bringing up things that they forgot to yesterday.

🤦

Didn't Farticus have plenty of time to do that yesterday?

a reply to: soberbacchus

I agree with you that Graham should not have used the ABA in that context, because it opened up a hole to criticize the point he was making.

That being said, that the ABA seems to have instantly exploited that hole and interjected the biggest Dem talking point is just going to fuel the perception that they're an arm of the left.

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

They're bringing up things that they forgot to yesterday.

🤦

It's more that they are bringing up things without the accused being present to defend himself because they know if he they had brought this up yesterday he would have easily defended it.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Did they pull their recommendation?

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

They're bringing up things that they forgot to yesterday.

🤦

They're going to litigate this case in the court of public opinion forever, because there isn't a real court that would ever hear the case. No prosecutor that would ever charge anyone.

This is all for television.

They would love to have the FBI investigate this because it could take weeks or months, they know they'd find nothing, nor conclude anything. They just want to delay and obstruct.

I don't think the American people are ignorant in significant numbers to fall for all of this but this case will have a final verdict in the midterms outcomes, one way or another.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

They're bringing up things that they forgot to yesterday.

🤦

Didn't Farticus have plenty of time to do that yesterday?

Is Farticus speaking again ?- horrible smell wafting over the Atlantic.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Wayfarer

No prosecutor would bring this case.
There is no evidence.
With that in mind, one would have to be crazy to punish the accused.

Personally, I am not sure who to believe. Kavanaugh came across as quite aggressive yesterday and I could imagine him being that way when drunk and maybe doing something he would regret. But there has to be a standard of evidence, otherwise things move to a very dark place.

I said initially that this should never have been a consideration in the nomination hearings.
Ford should have been asked to make the decision on whether to go to the police - and even advised to do so. That way the police could have determined if there were any grounds to proceed. Even now she could do so and if it gets to trial and Kavanaugh is found guilty having been afforded proper due process, he can be impeached and removed from the bench.

The mess the Democrats made here by keeping this secret for political purposes to delay the nomination until after the midterms is the real issue here. They royally screwed up. They don't want to follow any rules, whether they be Senate rules, the rules of common decency, or even the Constitution.

No prosecutor would bring the case if there wasn't more evidence, sure, but we're not even looking for more evidence, instead relying on eyewitness testimony exclusively. Preliminary investigations (that the Republicans and Kavanaugh don't want to happen) often turn up additional evidence that allows prosecutors to bring stronger cases or stronger charges.

And how can you make the claim that democrats don't want to follow any rules when senate Republicans refused to do their jobs and confirm/not-confirm Garland as anything but exactly the same thing? It would seem its part and parcel now of SC proceedings, wouldn't you agree?