Should Kavanaugh be confirmed for SCOTUS?

[Enoch the Red]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...918-story.html

If she's lying her story would not hold up to scrutiny by investigators.
If YOU think she's lying you should be demanding an investigation, not making excuses why there shouldn't be one.

FBI completed investigation of Anita Hill claims in 3 days

I'm scratching my head trying to think of what the FBI would be able to find out. She doesn't remember the date of the incident. She doesn't remember who hosted the party, where it was, or how she got there. She said she didn't tell anyone else about the incident. How exactly are they supposed to prove or disprove anything, and what exactly is there to scrutinize?

They would interview people asking if they remembered a party on a date they don't know, at a location they can't name, over thirty-five years ago? I can't even remember the name of my best friend in kindergarten, and that's someone I spent a good portion of every day with.

I think what I find most confusing is that many of the same people on this board that would eagerly, and rightly point out the problems with eye witness testimony even hours, days, or weeks after the event seem to have no issues at all with an account of an incident that occurred over thirty years ago.

[Aimless]

Only liberals can somehow accuse someone of racism for defending a black man against slander. Is this you trying to be funny? Is this some sort of parody I'm not getting?

I don't know how to tell you this but Anita Hill is a black woman. There's nothing strange about a racist judging a black woman to be less credible than a white woman, even when she's saying something about a black man. Because racists are frequently also misogynists and sexists, a black woman is regarded as being even lower than a black man.

Ding Ding Ding! There isn't anything for the FBI to find. There is no physical evidence just hazy recollections. The only reason she could possibly not want to testify prior to an FBI investigation is due to political calculation. They want the vote on his confirmation to the SCOTUS to occur after the mid-terms.

"Respectfully, it shouldn’t make a bit of difference whether Judge wishes to testify — that’s what subpoenas are for — and he has already spoken publicly, defending Kavanaugh and saying he has “no memory of this alleged incident.” But that carries no weight unless it’s under oath. If he’s not willing to say that under oath, you have to question how confident he is that those words are true."

And yet the author doesn't have the same opinion about Ford's actual accusation.

Presumably if there is a serious investigation of her claims she will also be required to give her testimony under circumstances that would make it illegal for her to lie, just like other witnesses. I'm not sure why you think this is some sort of gotcha

I'm scratching my head trying to think of what the FBI would be able to find out. She doesn't remember the date of the incident. She doesn't remember who hosted the party, where it was, or how she got there. She said she didn't tell anyone else about the incident. How exactly are they supposed to prove or disprove anything, and what exactly is there to scrutinize?

At least one person who went to school with her has publicly stated that the people knew about the assault at her school, even though she hadn't spoken about it in detail. According to Dr. Ford, Mark Judge was present during the assault. Both these people--as well as Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh--could be interviewed by the FBI to see if any more details can be uncovered under circumstances where it would be illegal for them to lie. They could also be required to testify under oath before the senate. Their accounts can be examined systematically for details that can be corroborated or refuted by people experienced with conducting such investigations. She didn't remember the date, but witnesses and other evidence may be able to help with pinpointing the date and location

I think what I find most confusing is that many of the same people on this board that would eagerly, and rightly point out the problems with eye witness testimony even hours, days, or weeks after the event seem to have no issues at all with an account of an incident that occurred over thirty years ago.

Just to be clear, being an eye witness to something traumati happening to someone else is different from testifying about something traumatic that happened to you personally.

[Enoch the Red]

At least one person who went to school with her has publicly stated that the people knew about the assault at her school, even though she hadn't spoken about it in detail. According to Dr. Ford, Mark Judge was present during the assault. Both these people--as well as Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh--could be interviewed by the FBI to see if any more details can be uncovered under circumstances where it would be illegal for them to lie. They could also be required to testify under oath before the senate. Their accounts can be examined systematically for details that can be corroborated or refuted by people experienced with conducting such investigations. She didn't remember the date, but witnesses and other evidence may be able to help with pinpointing the date and location

My understanding is that part of what made the Anita Hill investigation so fast was that she provided lots of details and information that could easily be checked and verified. What you are talking about, finding old classmates, then scheduling interviews with them, getting enough data to cross check their responses, and then re-interview them if necessary, does not sound fast nor easy to me.

And that is forgetting that if others were in fact aware of it, that seems to contradict her claim that she told no one.

[Aimless]

My understanding is that part of what made the Anita Hill investigation so fast was that she provided lots of details and information that could easily be checked and verified. What you are talking about, finding old classmates, then scheduling interviews with them, getting enough data to cross check their responses, and then re-interview them if necessary, does not sound fast nor easy to me.

I don't think it can be accomplished in three days, no. Nor do I think that should be the standard.

And that is forgetting that if others were in fact aware of it, that seems to contradict her claim that she told no one.

No. Afaict her claim was that she never spoke about it in detail (ie. with a detailed account of what happened and who did it) until around 2012.

[Enoch the Red]

I don't think it can be accomplished in three days, no. Nor do I think that should be the standard.

Which plays into the belief shared by Lewk and Dreadnaught that this has more to do with delaying the confirmation, (hopefully until after the midterm elections) than it does with performing a careful and thorough vetting of Kavanaugh. Contributing to that belief is that Feinstein decided to sit on this as long as she did. Can you not see why this would raise a number of questions in people's minds that don't require them being heartless misogynists who don't care about victims of sexual assault?

[Aimless]

Which plays into the belief shared by Lewk and Dreadnaught that this has more to do with delaying the confirmation, (hopefully until after the midterm elections) than it does with performing a careful and thorough vetting of Kavanaugh. Contributing to that belief is that Feinstein decided to sit on this as long as she did. Can you not see why this would raise a number of questions in people's minds that don't require them being heartless misogynists who don't care about victims of sexual assault?

Lewk is only marginally better than the kind of person who said McCain timed his decision to die for maximum political impact. Lewk wants the Mueller investigation to be wrapped up prematurely, for political reasons. Lewk sees all politics as means to an end, where the end is victory in a culture war, which to him justifies all means. Nothing else is more important to him, which is why he and others like him have decided that the allegations are false--or, worse, that they don't matter even if they're true. I cannot consider his view on this to be particularly interesting.

The question is whether or not you think these allegations are important enough to warrant investigation before Kavanaugh is confirmed. People who truly care about victims of sexual assault--and about the integrity of SCOTUS justices--will believe the allegations should be investigated before Kavanaugh is confirmed. People who care more about politics will disagree. I believe such allegations should be investigated. The republic will not be destroyed or tainted if Kavanaugh's confirmation--or anyone else's confirmation--is delayed for this reason. Taking allegations about sexual assault seriously is not a harmful departure from the norms of a modern, civilized society.

As for sitting on the story, afaict Dr. Ford requested that her story be treated as confidential. On top of this, Eshoo and Feinstein may not have regarded the allegations as credible, or believed they would not be able to make a strong case based on the information in the letter without the victim coming forward. I don't know the circumstances of the leak.

Also on the matter of politics, McConnell himself threatened to delay the vote until just before the midterms, when Democrats requested access to documents they needed to see before the confirmation. This was a spectacular demonstration of hypocrisy and double standards even at the time he made the threat; it is even more so now when he and other GOP shills say, "Oh no there's simply no time!!!!" When a group of people shows themselves willing to sacrifice principles as well as their own presumptive integrity on the altar of politics, and then tries to chastise their opponents for mirroring their actions--esp. when it's clearly a response or attempt at remedy--I can only laugh.