I also think they need to return to 60 votes needing to confirm, not 50. You used to need 60 votes to confirm a justice. It makes it harder to ram people through if the two parties have to work together to get their nominee through.
Yeah if they can impeach at 50 then they might be smart and go back to 60.
We can all thank Harry Reid for letting the genie out of the bottle and breaking the nuclear option for this.
Impeachement based on the number of confirmation votes would be an incredibly *bad* idea.
As to the concerns about Keith Ellison, the DFL Party in Minnesota said they were not able to substantiate the claims of his accuser, but ALSO admitted their investigation was not exculpatory, so they have asked that the police look into the matter. Which, as far as I'm aware, is more than the actual accuser herself has done. They have gone so far as to forward their findings to local authorities.
The FBI probe was done by twelve angry and conflicted Republicans.
Consider who is in charge of the FBI’s investigation: Director Chris Wray, who attended Yale Law School with Kavanaugh (he was two years behind him) and, like Kavanaugh, joined the conservative Federalist Society while there. During the George W. Bush administration, Wray worked as a political appointee in the deputy attorney general’s office while Kavanaugh served as a deputy white House counsel—positions in which they would have regularly dealt with each other.
Wray himself is supervised by another former Federalist Society member, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein’s ties to Kavanaugh run even deeper—they worked together on Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and Rosenstein attended the first day of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. Rosenstein also volunteered prosecutors from around the country to work on a special detail to clear Kavanaugh's records.
Democrats need to demand that Wray and Rosenstein recuse themselves from the Kavanaugh probe given their longstanding ties to the nominee, and insist the investigation be overseen by the FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich, a career agent with no ties to either political party.
According to NBC News, more than 40 potential sources have yet to be contacted by the FBI, including Kavanaugh’s original accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. A number of people with information relevant to the investigation have complained that even after calling the bureau’s field offices or national tip line in good faith, the bureau has not followed up with them
The FBI probe was done by twelve angry and conflicted Republicans.
Consider who is in charge of the FBI’s investigation: Director Chris Wray, who attended Yale Law School with Kavanaugh (he was two years behind him) and, like Kavanaugh, joined the conservative Federalist Society while there. During the George W. Bush administration, Wray worked as a political appointee in the deputy attorney general’s office while Kavanaugh served as a deputy white House counsel—positions in which they would have regularly dealt with each other.
Wray himself is supervised by another former Federalist Society member, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein’s ties to Kavanaugh run even deeper—they worked together on Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and Rosenstein attended the first day of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. Rosenstein also volunteered prosecutors from around the country to work on a special detail to clear Kavanaugh's records.
Democrats need to demand that Wray and Rosenstein recuse themselves from the Kavanaugh probe given their longstanding ties to the nominee, and insist the investigation be overseen by the FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich, a career agent with no ties to either political party.
According to NBC News, more than 40 potential sources have yet to be contacted by the FBI, including Kavanaugh’s original accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. A number of people with information relevant to the investigation have complained that even after calling the bureau’s field offices or national tip line in good faith, the bureau has not followed up with them
I didn't realize taking cold calls was part of an FBI investigation. Investigating every phone 'tip' would delay the investigation considerably. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what the Democrats want here. How about if the FBI investigates your claim and it proves to be false, you go to jail, and if it proves to be a waste of their time and effort, you get charged for it? Unless any of these people saw Kavanaugh assault Ford their testimony is worthless. "I had a beer with Bart!" is not relevent...
The FBI probe was done by twelve angry and conflicted Republicans.
Consider who is in charge of the FBI’s investigation: Director Chris Wray, who attended Yale Law School with Kavanaugh (he was two years behind him) and, like Kavanaugh, joined the conservative Federalist Society while there. During the George W. Bush administration, Wray worked as a political appointee in the deputy attorney general’s office while Kavanaugh served as a deputy white House counsel—positions in which they would have regularly dealt with each other.
Wray himself is supervised by another former Federalist Society member, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein’s ties to Kavanaugh run even deeper—they worked together on Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and Rosenstein attended the first day of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. Rosenstein also volunteered prosecutors from around the country to work on a special detail to clear Kavanaugh's records.
Democrats need to demand that Wray and Rosenstein recuse themselves from the Kavanaugh probe given their longstanding ties to the nominee, and insist the investigation be overseen by the FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich, a career agent with no ties to either political party.
According to NBC News, more than 40 potential sources have yet to be contacted by the FBI, including Kavanaugh’s original accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. A number of people with information relevant to the investigation have complained that even after calling the bureau’s field offices or national tip line in good faith, the bureau has not followed up with them
I didn't realize taking cold calls was part of an FBI investigation. Investigating every phone 'tip' would delay the investigation considerably. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what the Democrats want here. How about if the FBI investigates your claim and it proves to be false, you go to jail, and if it proves to be a waste of their time and effort, you get charged for it? Unless any of these people saw Kavanaugh assault Ford their testimony is worthless. "I had a beer with Bart!" is not relevent...
Some may be nothing but there are classmates that are saying they can't get through. Several are ready to attest Kavanaugh has been lying about his past under oath. Like that he said the Devil's triangle was a drinking game. This rage filled liar is who Republicans want to put on the Supreme Court?
The lack of findings on a hamstrung investigation is outrageous. It will be used as cover to conform this angry and conflicted judge to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. He has lied repeatedly throughout the confirmation process - understating his binge drinking and lying about his documented sexual behaviors and lying about his work. In addition, all his work during his formative years under Bush - his views on torture and warrantless wiretapping and his involvement in theft of Democratic emails are hidden. This whole thing is a sham and he will be confirmed to an illegitimate Supreme Court that will issue illegitimate decisions.
The FBI sleepwalked through a hamstrung investigation and the Republican decision was to hide the results in maximum security. Once they are sure it won't harm their narrative they will release it. What kind of process is this? A sham leading to an illegitimate kangaroo court.
Regardless of anything his insane crying conspiracy fest at his confirmation hearing is disqualifing. His hatred for Democrats is disqualifying. A packed partisan Supreme Court will not be legitimate.
The FBI probe was done by twelve angry and conflicted Republicans.
Consider who is in charge of the FBI’s investigation: Director Chris Wray, who attended Yale Law School with Kavanaugh (he was two years behind him) and, like Kavanaugh, joined the conservative Federalist Society while there. During the George W. Bush administration, Wray worked as a political appointee in the deputy attorney general’s office while Kavanaugh served as a deputy white House counsel—positions in which they would have regularly dealt with each other.
Wray himself is supervised by another former Federalist Society member, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein’s ties to Kavanaugh run even deeper—they worked together on Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and Rosenstein attended the first day of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. Rosenstein also volunteered prosecutors from around the country to work on a special detail to clear Kavanaugh's records.
So this investigation was a sham to begin with. Kavanaugh's own friends and associates were put in charge--an obvious conflict of interest.
I don't know what this investigation will find in the end, but this is absolutely not sufficient. A phony investigation (1) controlled by people who have every reason to show favoritism, (2) which only investigates a fraction of the relevant witnesses and character witnesses, (3) which only covers a fraction of the relevant allegations, and (4) which was forced to close within a few days, is nothing more than a smokescreen so Kavanaugh's allies can claim they investigated him and found nothing damning.
At every turn, his supporters have tried to hide the truth about him, from mysteriously classifying 100,000 pages about his tenure during the Bush administration, to opposing the very concept that people like Dr. Ford should be able to testify against him, to creating a sham investigation that was rigged to act in Kavanaugh's favor and trick people who are on the fence into thinking that the investigation would address their concerns.
Kavanaugh committed perjury during his hearings, and rather than withdraw their support for him and pick a candidate with more integrity, they tried to cover for him. Kavanaugh is being pushed through with as little scrutiny as possible, by people who know that scrutiny is bad for dishonest men like Kavanaugh.
Not only that but his blubbering, tears and rage filled performance clearly shows he lacks the judicial temperament to be a judge much less a Supreme Court Justice. Especially combined with his history of bad behavior and binge drinking that he has been lying about. On top of all that he showed himself to be a naked partisan operative with his insane "revenge of the Clintons!" lies and his contemptuous performance while answering questions from Democrats. This guy is an easy NO. He has no place on the Supreme Court.
I'm not a fan of Neil Gorsuch, but at least he's never committed perjury. Even if you think a moderate like Merrick Garland doesn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court, you can at least pick a far-right candidate with a clean background.
I never thought that of all things would have to be a minimum standard for a Supreme Court justice. But my expectations for this administration keep getting lower and lower. In any other situation, I'd be asking for a non-partisan candidate. Now I'm forced to just ask for a non-criminal candidate, and I'm not even sure I can get that.
It would be nice to know what direction this investigation was suppose to take.
Was it to investigate the charges of perjury? Was it to only investigate the Ford accusation? Was it to investigate all the assault accusations?
What did Flake or the Democratic Party for that matter want the investigation to focus on for them to make an informed decision regarding Kavanaugh?
I agree with Balrog that you do not want to have this dragging out following every lead that the media dregs up.
I also think there isn’t enough transparency on Kavanaugh’s political background, let alone his personal background, to make an informed choice on his appointment.
They didn't even interview Ford or Kavanaugh. Since neither of them are dead or in a coma unable to communicate, that is patently ridiculous on it's face. Forget not following leads, they didn't even have permission to interview the two key figures in the alleged incident. This would be like investigating a bank robbery and not talking to the employees who were in the bank at the time it was held up.
I'd be less up in arms if they had just gone ahead with the vote without this farce taking place. At least it would have been more honest than this. But don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. This was a smoke-screen to preserve the myth of the "moderate Republican" like Flake or Collins. Newsflash: they don't exist.
It would be nice to know what direction this investigation was suppose to take.
Was it to investigate the charges of perjury? Was it to only investigate the Ford accusation? Was it to investigate all the assault accusations?
Personally, I think the investigation should follow all of those leads, because all of them are relevant to Kavanaugh's character and fitness to be a Supreme Court justice. I don't know if the third one will go anywhere, but if he lied, if he assaulted Ford, or if he assaulted anyone else, any one of those is more than sufficient justification to proceed with another candidate.
I think we're ignoring the underlying current of people who probably (deep down) believe Kavanaugh did everything he is accused of and simply don't think it's a big deal. From the assault to the perjury, take your pick. They just don't care.
I didn't watch but I've heard that Kavanaughs defense of how he couldn't have gang raped Sweetnik was that to the effect of "golly gee I was never in a gang!".
Witnesses have said he and Judge spiked girls drinks. Then they probably ran a rape train on the semi or unconscious victim as Sweetnik alleges. His defense is to pretend to misunderstand and say he wasn't in a gang.
It should all count. Lies and misdirection, perjury, poor character, alcohol abuse, terrible judicial decisions, imaginary rage filled grudges, weepy then rage temperament of a sloppy drunk.
The FBI probe was done by twelve angry and conflicted Republicans.
No, the FBI probe was conducted by the FBI.
Senator Feinstein was whining that the FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford. They didn't have to--those two already gave their testimony so there was nothing more for them to add. If they did add anything which contradicted something they already said then it is actually in their best interest *not* to give extra FBI statements lest they risk perjury. This is just "sour grapes" that the report didn't go the way that Democrats hoped it would.
The scope of the investigation was specifically limited to the allegations from Ford and Ramirez - and as has been said by others the investigation was pretty cursory even of those with multiple potential witnesses not interviewed.
I think it's worth reviewing the reason why a background check is required of candidates for many jobs (and this investigation was a specific extension to a previously done background check). The purpose of the check is to judge a candidate's past mistakes, character, and fitness, and to identify potential hiring risks for safety and security reasons.
The exact nature of what's being looked at will depend on the job - so for instance a candidate for a job with national security implications would expect to be scrutinized closely for possible blackmail concerns and their ability to be discreet. In this case a candidate for a Supreme Court post would expect any concerns over their judicial temperament to be scrutinized. In his testimony to the Senate Kavanaugh did not demonstrate judicial temperament: - he was highly emotional rather than dispassionate - he consistently lied and avoided questions rather than seeking to establish the truth - he presented the issues in a partisan fashion rather than taking a balanced approach A genuine background check would have reviewed this evidence and sought to confirm whether that was consistent with past behavior or represented a one-off aberration as a result of the extremely intense public scrutiny at the time.
I think we're ignoring the underlying current of people who probably (deep down) believe Kavanaugh did everything he is accused of and simply don't think it's a big deal.
I think we can all remember the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump bragged about his ability to get away with molesting women, and I think we can remember some of Trump's supporters saying it flat out didn't matter. Even if Kavanaugh was caught on tape admitting to the assault, some of his defenders would still say it wasn't a big deal.
The FBI probe was done by twelve angry and conflicted Republicans.
No, the FBI probe was conducted by the FBI.
Senator Feinstein was whining that the FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford. They didn't have to--those two already gave their testimony so there was nothing more for them to add. If they did add anything which contradicted something they already said then it is actually in their best interest *not* to give extra FBI statements lest they risk perjury. This is just "sour grapes" that the report didn't go the way that Democrats hoped it would.
Wray and his boss Rosenstein are fellow heritage foundation lunatics. Wray was two years behind Kavanaugh at Yale and knew him there. All three worked with Bush and in particular Rosenstein and Kavanaugh often worked closely together. Also the white House limited the investigation. Rigged by angry and conflicted Republicans. A total joke. A sham. Illegitamate.
We can all thank Harry Reid for letting the genie out of the bottle and breaking the nuclear option for this.
Impeachement based on the number of confirmation votes would be an incredibly *bad* idea.
This is a facile argument. Harry Reid isn't to blame for the GOP's decision to invoke the nuclear option as it pertains to Supreme Court nominees. It was the GOP who did it, they and they alone bear responsibility for it. Conservatives need to learn they can't just pass the buck. They need to own their decisions and live with them.
Senator Feinstein was whining that the FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford. They didn't have to--those two already gave their testimony so there was nothing more for them to add. If they did add anything which contradicted something they already said then it is actually in their best interest *not* to give extra FBI statements lest they risk perjury. This is just "sour grapes" that the report didn't go the way that Democrats hoped it would.
And yet - nothing you've said here makes the investigation any less of a sham. As does only having one copy of the report for senators to share. As does having the vote only 24 hours after a 1000 page report was delivered.
To be honest - I think you've missed the point entirely. Democrats aren't angry that the report isn't what they wanted. Democrats are angry that the elites are protecting other elites for purely tribal reasons. We wanted a *FAIR* investigation. One that would amount to more than a rubber stamp. We're tired of a society in which your ideology is more important than if you tried to rape a woman.
Although definitely less than ideal, everything which has transpired re: Kavanaugh has been legal and, therefore, legitimate. Not liking the people in power is insufficient grounds for claiming "illegitimate". I didn't like it when Obama got elected but I didn't lose any sleep over it or get bent out of shape over it, either.
I love how the Democrats are throwing the FBI under the bus now. When the FBI was looking into Trump they couldn't praise it enough, but now that this investigation didn't go the way they wanted they can't get in front of a camera fast enough to feign indignation and being upset.
The cloture vote clock is already ticking and will occur on Friday. The full confirmation vote is slated to happen on Saturday, most likely. My advice would be to quit worrying about Kavanaugh and keep hoping that Ginsberg's health lasts until 2021--her medical status has been a point of concern for a couple of years now.
The FBI probe was done by twelve angry and conflicted Republicans.
No, the FBI probe was conducted by the FBI.
Senator Feinstein was whining that the FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford. They didn't have to--those two already gave their testimony so there was nothing more for them to add. If they did add anything which contradicted something they already said then it is actually in their best interest *not* to give extra FBI statements lest they risk perjury. This is just "sour grapes" that the report didn't go the way that Democrats hoped it would.
And yet, one of them was practically BEGGING to be interviewed by them and the other was being shielded by the White House. Since lying to the FBI is an offense that includes jail time, the overwhelming likelihood is that Ford is telling the truth unless she is purposefully trying to get incarcerated. And by not wanting to be interviewed, Kavanaugh signals that even appearing before them and telling his current story puts him in legal jeopardy. It's already blatantly obvious Kavanaugh lied to the Senate. It just doesn't have any consequences because the Republicans refuse to enforce them.
I love how the Democrats are throwing the FBI under the bus now. When the FBI was looking into Trump they couldn't praise it enough, but now that this investigation didn't go the way they wanted they can't get in front of a camera fast enough to feign indignation and being upset.
I expressed hope and support for the FBI's investigation. What bothers me is that the Trump administration has put Kavanaugh's friends in charge and tried to keep the investigation as short, small-scale, and narrow as possible. A rushed investigation by biased people that doesn't interview the vast majority of character witnesses isn't nearly as reliable as a thorough investigation by non-partisan figures.
I've not said anything bad about the FBI. But this investigation has been manipulated.
Away from Kavanaugh there have been some interesting developments in relation to Russia's hacking programme. I posted before about the unprecedented detail of the information published by the UK in relation to the Skripal poisoning. It's clear now that this use of transparency is a deliberate tactic to offset the Russian desire to operate in secrecy - as the UK released today further details of a series of hacks.
Easily the most impressive counter-espionage operation though was revealed at a joint Dutch/UK press conference. That described how GRU agents were caught attempting to hack the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at the time they were investigating the Skripal poisoning. Electronic equipment seized from the agents provided leads to further hacking operations, such as the Malaysian investigation into the MH17 flight shot down by a Russian missile.
Who gets to define "fair"? You? Me? Neither one of us? The FBI interviewed the people it thought necessary to interview. The argument that the White House, whose current spat with the FBI has been well-documented over the last 1.5 years, somehow *told* the FBI who to question, where to look, or what to avoid, is tantamount to conspiracy theory.
The Trump administration did say early on that they intended the investigation to be limited and short, hence the absurd and arbitrary one-week deadline. That's not a Democratic conspiracy theory; the Trump administration made their position on the investigation very clear.
And the fact that the FBI investigation just happens to have been headed by old friends of Kavanaugh suggests that the FBI interviewed the people that Kavanaugh's friends found convenient to interview.
And the fact that some witnesses tried to reach out to the FBI with testimony and were rejected without explanation is pretty clear proof that the heads of the investigation were going out of their way not to chase every lead.
I don't know who put Kavanaugh's old friends in charge of the investigation, but I do find it to be an awfully convenient coincidence that Kavanaugh was investigated by his friends, and I find it meaningful that they failed to consider even information that was freely offered to them.
Who gets to define "fair"? You? Me? Neither one of us? The FBI interviewed the people it thought necessary to interview. The argument that the White House, whose current spat with the FBI has been well-documented over the last 1.5 years, somehow *told* the FBI who to question, where to look, or what to avoid, is tantamount to conspiracy theory.
Dead wrong.
Saturday NBC reported that Julie Swetnick, a woman represented by the lawyer Michael Avenatti who has accused Kavanaugh of being present when she was sexually assaulted as a high-school student, would not be interviewed and that “the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview.”
The Wall Street Journal also reported that anonymous sources said the investigation was being “tightly controlled” by the White House, excluding Swetnick. There have been reports of frustrated agents and classmates and character witnesses who tried but were not interviewed.
So this is how the Trump administration views investigations: as something to be limited and controlled. Maybe this is why Trump has been so immensely critical of the Mueller investigation. He wasn't able to manipulate it.
This has always been "business as usual" for elites on both sides. Why be upset about it now?
Who gets to define "fair"? You? Me? Neither one of us? The FBI interviewed the people it thought necessary to interview. The argument that the White House, whose current spat with the FBI has been well-documented over the last 1.5 years, somehow *told* the FBI who to question, where to look, or what to avoid, is tantamount to conspiracy theory.
I'm not just upset about it "now". Don't comport your cynicism with my expectation of the world, even if it's just what I want it to be.
Also - it's clearly not a conspiracy theory. The point man for the FBI's investigation was Don McGahn - Trump's legal counsel. It was clearly throttled and given guidelines by someone who had a vested interest in the outcome. This is pretty well established by now.
The White House were the ones in charge of the scope of this investigation, since it is not criminal and was a background investigation into THEIR nominee. From the beginning news reports were saying that it was limited. The White House said that was not true. Then even MORE news reports came out saying that it was even more limited than previously reported, to the point of ignoring people who are CLEARLY central to any questions regarding this matter. The only thing that is the "fault" of the FBI is for going along with it in the first place. They should have refused to play a part in this farce. But the terms and scope of the inquiry are being dictated by the White House.
Saturday NBC reported that Julie Swetnick, a woman represented by the lawyer Michael Avenatti who has accused Kavanaugh of being present when she was sexually assaulted as a high-school student, would not be interviewed
If her statement is "he was there" then I wouldn't interview her, either. She didn't say "he is the one who did it", only that he was there. What? That doesn't mean *anything*. That would be like saying "Jack was there when the bank was robbed--you should question him about his involvement".
Conspiracy theory is always a point of view--people see what they want to see...or don't see what they don't want to see, depending upon the circumstances. Some people still believe that the levees in New Orleans were dynamited.
The only thing that is the "fault" of the FBI is for going along with it in the first place. They should have refused to play a part in this farce.
But Democrats and Ford supporters were adamant that an FBI investigation take place, a request to which the Judiciary Committee agreed. Are you suggesting that the FBI should have said "no, thank you--we'll pass"?
I thought the general consensus was that the FBI opposes Trump and his Administration. How, then, can it now be just a puppet of the Trump Administration? Which way is it?
Conspiracy theory is always a point of view--people see what they want to see...or don't see what they don't want to see, depending upon the circumstances. Some people still believe that the levees in New Orleans were dynamited.
As a Historian -I STRONGLY reject this. There is an enormous difference between a conspiracy theory (Alex Jones says Newtown was faked) and an event that was alleged to happen and which has plenty of corroboration but has yet to be proven true due to (insert reason here).
In point of fact, what you have described is "bias", and not a conspiracy theory.
I thought the general consensus was that the FBI opposes Trump and his Administration. How, then, can it now be just a puppet of the Trump Administration? Which way is it?
This is actually counter productive to your point. Trump (and conservatives) are saying that the FBI opposes the administration, not Democrats. However, he's obviously the head of the executive branch, under which the FBI falls. To pretend he doesn't have influence there is disingenuous. It's why we have a special counsel (he influenced the FBI by firing the man investigating him)
Comments
Impeachement based on the number of confirmation votes would be an incredibly *bad* idea.
Consider who is in charge of the FBI’s investigation: Director Chris Wray, who attended Yale Law School with Kavanaugh (he was two years behind him) and, like Kavanaugh, joined the conservative Federalist Society while there. During the George W. Bush administration, Wray worked as a political appointee in the deputy attorney general’s office while Kavanaugh served as a deputy white House counsel—positions in which they would have regularly dealt with each other.
Wray himself is supervised by another former Federalist Society member, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein’s ties to Kavanaugh run even deeper—they worked together on Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and Rosenstein attended the first day of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. Rosenstein also volunteered prosecutors from around the country to work on a special detail to clear Kavanaugh's records.
Democrats need to demand that Wray and Rosenstein recuse themselves from the Kavanaugh probe given their longstanding ties to the nominee, and insist the investigation be overseen by the FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich, a career agent with no ties to either political party.
According to NBC News, more than 40 potential sources have yet to be contacted by the FBI, including Kavanaugh’s original accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. A number of people with information relevant to the investigation have complained that even after calling the bureau’s field offices or national tip line in good faith, the bureau has not followed up with them
The lack of findings on a hamstrung investigation is outrageous. It will be used as cover to conform this angry and conflicted judge to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. He has lied repeatedly throughout the confirmation process - understating his binge drinking and lying about his documented sexual behaviors and lying about his work. In addition, all his work during his formative years under Bush - his views on torture and warrantless wiretapping and his involvement in theft of Democratic emails are hidden. This whole thing is a sham and he will be confirmed to an illegitimate Supreme Court that will issue illegitimate decisions.
The FBI sleepwalked through a hamstrung investigation and the Republican decision was to hide the results in maximum security. Once they are sure it won't harm their narrative they will release it. What kind of process is this? A sham leading to an illegitimate kangaroo court.
Here's a list of witnesses and people the FBI didn't interview
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/04/heres-a-list-of-people-the-fbi-did-not-interview-okay-with-this-flake-and-collins/
Regardless of anything his insane crying conspiracy fest at his confirmation hearing is disqualifing. His hatred for Democrats is disqualifying. A packed partisan Supreme Court will not be legitimate.
I don't know what this investigation will find in the end, but this is absolutely not sufficient. A phony investigation (1) controlled by people who have every reason to show favoritism, (2) which only investigates a fraction of the relevant witnesses and character witnesses, (3) which only covers a fraction of the relevant allegations, and (4) which was forced to close within a few days, is nothing more than a smokescreen so Kavanaugh's allies can claim they investigated him and found nothing damning.
At every turn, his supporters have tried to hide the truth about him, from mysteriously classifying 100,000 pages about his tenure during the Bush administration, to opposing the very concept that people like Dr. Ford should be able to testify against him, to creating a sham investigation that was rigged to act in Kavanaugh's favor and trick people who are on the fence into thinking that the investigation would address their concerns.
Kavanaugh committed perjury during his hearings, and rather than withdraw their support for him and pick a candidate with more integrity, they tried to cover for him. Kavanaugh is being pushed through with as little scrutiny as possible, by people who know that scrutiny is bad for dishonest men like Kavanaugh.
I never thought that of all things would have to be a minimum standard for a Supreme Court justice. But my expectations for this administration keep getting lower and lower. In any other situation, I'd be asking for a non-partisan candidate. Now I'm forced to just ask for a non-criminal candidate, and I'm not even sure I can get that.
Was it to investigate the charges of perjury?
Was it to only investigate the Ford accusation?
Was it to investigate all the assault accusations?
What did Flake or the Democratic Party for that matter want the investigation to focus on for them to make an informed decision regarding Kavanaugh?
I agree with Balrog that you do not want to have this dragging out following every lead that the media dregs up.
I also think there isn’t enough transparency on Kavanaugh’s political background, let alone his personal background, to make an informed choice on his appointment.
I'd be less up in arms if they had just gone ahead with the vote without this farce taking place. At least it would have been more honest than this. But don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. This was a smoke-screen to preserve the myth of the "moderate Republican" like Flake or Collins. Newsflash: they don't exist.
Witnesses have said he and Judge spiked girls drinks. Then they probably ran a rape train on the semi or unconscious victim as Sweetnik alleges. His defense is to pretend to misunderstand and say he wasn't in a gang.
It should all count. Lies and misdirection, perjury, poor character, alcohol abuse, terrible judicial decisions, imaginary rage filled grudges, weepy then rage temperament of a sloppy drunk.
Senator Feinstein was whining that the FBI did not interview Kavanaugh or Ford. They didn't have to--those two already gave their testimony so there was nothing more for them to add. If they did add anything which contradicted something they already said then it is actually in their best interest *not* to give extra FBI statements lest they risk perjury. This is just "sour grapes" that the report didn't go the way that Democrats hoped it would.
I think it's worth reviewing the reason why a background check is required of candidates for many jobs (and this investigation was a specific extension to a previously done background check). The purpose of the check is to judge a candidate's past mistakes, character, and fitness, and to identify potential hiring risks for safety and security reasons.
The exact nature of what's being looked at will depend on the job - so for instance a candidate for a job with national security implications would expect to be scrutinized closely for possible blackmail concerns and their ability to be discreet. In this case a candidate for a Supreme Court post would expect any concerns over their judicial temperament to be scrutinized. In his testimony to the Senate Kavanaugh did not demonstrate judicial temperament:
- he was highly emotional rather than dispassionate
- he consistently lied and avoided questions rather than seeking to establish the truth
- he presented the issues in a partisan fashion rather than taking a balanced approach
A genuine background check would have reviewed this evidence and sought to confirm whether that was consistent with past behavior or represented a one-off aberration as a result of the extremely intense public scrutiny at the time.
Irrespective of the truth about the sexual assault allegations, the apparent lack of judicial temperament makes Kavanaugh appear unsuitable for a position as a judge of any sort, let alone a Supreme Court seat. That's the basis of the argument by over 500 law professors not to confirm him. Their letter makes one other interesting point as well - there is a requirement in US law for judges to recuse themselves from a case whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Given his evidence to the Senate that legal requirement would be expected to require Kavanaugh to disqualify himself from a considerable proportion of the cases that come to the Supreme Court ...
And yet - nothing you've said here makes the investigation any less of a sham. As does only having one copy of the report for senators to share. As does having the vote only 24 hours after a 1000 page report was delivered.
To be honest - I think you've missed the point entirely. Democrats aren't angry that the report isn't what they wanted. Democrats are angry that the elites are protecting other elites for purely tribal reasons. We wanted a *FAIR* investigation. One that would amount to more than a rubber stamp. We're tired of a society in which your ideology is more important than if you tried to rape a woman.
I love how the Democrats are throwing the FBI under the bus now. When the FBI was looking into Trump they couldn't praise it enough, but now that this investigation didn't go the way they wanted they can't get in front of a camera fast enough to feign indignation and being upset.
The cloture vote clock is already ticking and will occur on Friday. The full confirmation vote is slated to happen on Saturday, most likely. My advice would be to quit worrying about Kavanaugh and keep hoping that Ginsberg's health lasts until 2021--her medical status has been a point of concern for a couple of years now.
I've not said anything bad about the FBI. But this investigation has been manipulated.
Easily the most impressive counter-espionage operation though was revealed at a joint Dutch/UK press conference. That described how GRU agents were caught attempting to hack the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at the time they were investigating the Skripal poisoning. Electronic equipment seized from the agents provided leads to further hacking operations, such as the Malaysian investigation into the MH17 flight shot down by a Russian missile.
And the fact that the FBI investigation just happens to have been headed by old friends of Kavanaugh suggests that the FBI interviewed the people that Kavanaugh's friends found convenient to interview.
And the fact that some witnesses tried to reach out to the FBI with testimony and were rejected without explanation is pretty clear proof that the heads of the investigation were going out of their way not to chase every lead.
I don't know who put Kavanaugh's old friends in charge of the investigation, but I do find it to be an awfully convenient coincidence that Kavanaugh was investigated by his friends, and I find it meaningful that they failed to consider even information that was freely offered to them.
Saturday NBC reported that Julie Swetnick, a woman represented by the lawyer Michael Avenatti who has accused Kavanaugh of being present when she was sexually assaulted as a high-school student, would not be interviewed and that “the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview.”
The Wall Street Journal also reported that anonymous sources said the investigation was being “tightly controlled” by the White House, excluding Swetnick. There have been reports of frustrated agents and classmates and character witnesses who tried but were not interviewed.
I'm not just upset about it "now". Don't comport your cynicism with my expectation of the world, even if it's just what I want it to be.
Also - it's clearly not a conspiracy theory. The point man for the FBI's investigation was Don McGahn - Trump's legal counsel. It was clearly throttled and given guidelines by someone who had a vested interest in the outcome. This is pretty well established by now.
Conspiracy theory is always a point of view--people see what they want to see...or don't see what they don't want to see, depending upon the circumstances. Some people still believe that the levees in New Orleans were dynamited. But Democrats and Ford supporters were adamant that an FBI investigation take place, a request to which the Judiciary Committee agreed. Are you suggesting that the FBI should have said "no, thank you--we'll pass"?
I thought the general consensus was that the FBI opposes Trump and his Administration. How, then, can it now be just a puppet of the Trump Administration? Which way is it?
In point of fact, what you have described is "bias", and not a conspiracy theory. This is actually counter productive to your point. Trump (and conservatives) are saying that the FBI opposes the administration, not Democrats. However, he's obviously the head of the executive branch, under which the FBI falls. To pretend he doesn't have influence there is disingenuous. It's why we have a special counsel (he influenced the FBI by firing the man investigating him)