Justice Kennedy Retiring

[SHOCKvalue]

Grassley going to sink this thing for Kavanaugh without Kavanaugh even uttering a word on his own behalf.

[ShockCrazy]

Grassley going to sink this thing for Kavanaugh without Kavanaugh even uttering a word on his own behalf.

That is for sure. Also this whole format which the Republicans came up with is doing them no favors at all. 5 minute back and forth for a prosecutor who oddly seems to be acting like she's building some sort of case and has all the time in the world to get to the end, which she does not, is not working. At all.

[ShockCrazy]

I also think that people expecting her to have corroboration from others at the party on it happening or events is so silly. This was a seminal event in her life of course she recalls some specific details that others wouldn't. In fact I'm not surprised others at the party would recall anything at all, how many of you if asked could remember a party and who was there or who left early if it was just another normal party/gathering from your perspective? I imagine most would struggle even if that party took place just one year ago.

Also food for thought. The FBI investigation is only a useful delay tactic IF it leads to Kavanaugh being rejected. There is plenty of time for Kavanaugh, specifically as nomination, to be approved before the election or even after with a full investigation. So acting like this is just some dirty trick to delay doesn't make sense to me. If there is nothing there he will be confirmed before a new congress is seated.

I mean if I'm Kavanaugh and I feel clean, and I have roughly 100 more days still to be confirmed, I totally want a investigation(the last case like this took 3 days to investigate). But oddly he doesn't want it, and the people who are supposedly making it up and would face repercussions if disproved AND wouldn't then stop Kavanaugh from being on the court anyways, DO want them digging in.

[SHOCKvalue]

I also think that people expecting her to have corroboration from others at the party on it happening or events is so silly. This was a seminal event in her life of course she recalls some specific details that others wouldn't. In fact I'm not surprised others at the party would recall anything at all, how many of you if asked could remember a party and who was there or who left early if it was just another normal party/gathering from your perspective? I imagine most would struggle even if that party took place just one year ago.

Also food for thought. The FBI investigation is only a useful delay tactic IF it leads to Kavanaugh being rejected. There is plenty of time for Kavanaugh, specifically as nomination, to be approved before the election or even after with a full investigation. So acting like this is just some dirty trick to delay doesn't make sense to me. If there is nothing there he will be confirmed before a new congress is seated.

I mean if I'm Kavanaugh and I feel clean, and I have roughly 100 more days still to be confirmed, I totally want a investigation(the last case like this took 3 days to investigate). But oddly he doesn't want it, and the people who are supposedly making it up and would face repercussions if disproved AND wouldn't then stop Kavanaugh from being on the court anyways, DO want them digging in.

What exactly is the FBI going to look for, evidence-wise, and what is their jurisdiction and application to a circumstance such as this? I mean the evidence is pretty much what we’re getting today, and they are a federal law enforcement agency.

[ShockCrazy]

What exactly is the FBI going to look for, evidence-wise, and what is their jurisdiction and application to a circumstance such as this? I mean the evidence is pretty much what we’re getting today, and they are a federal law enforcement agency.

You do know that investigations are had all the time, and trials are had and convictions are found for crimes like this with zero physical evidence right? They can go and ask questions of people involved. On the record. They can do things to protect those people and their identities. Which no matter which side they corroborate, Kavanaugh or accusers, I imagine many people who may have useful information fear coming forward in any of these major allegations because of the repercussions. Especially since they may not have something that seems like a big deal or tells us anything we don't know, they may not feel the risk is worth what is effectively little gain. This is explicitly the purpose of the FBI in these instances, it gives certainty that these are relevant voices(anonymous paper reports aren't going to help because they will be disbelieved even if true), but also protects them.

[SHOCKvalue]

You do know that investigations are had all the time, and trials are had and convictions are found for crimes like this with zero physical evidence right? They can go and ask questions of people involved. On the record. They can do things to protect those people and their identities. Which no matter which side they corroborate, Kavanaugh or accusers, I imagine many people who may have useful information fear coming forward in any of these major allegations because of the repercussions. Especially since they may not have something that seems like a big deal or tells us anything we don't know, they may not feel the risk is worth what is effectively little gain. This is explicitly the purpose of the FBI in these instances, it gives certainty that these are relevant voices(anonymous paper reports aren't going to help because they will be disbelieved even if true), but also protects them.

Thirty-some years ago.

All parties minor.

No one knows specific location of crime.

Statute of limitations considerations.

Three parties involved, only one saying it happened and offering specifics.

There’s not a prosecutor in this country - regardless of political persuasion - that would touch this thing with a ten foot pole, and you know it.

[jdshock]

"Is that a thing? Like ever?"

Yes. The FBI investigated Anita Hill's investigations. Not to mention, the FBI has already assisted in a background check on Kavanaugh as a nominee. This would not be a strange or unconstitutional investigation.

[SHOCKvalue]

The Anita Hill situation basically immediately preceded Thomas’ nomination, and was associated with EEOC considerations. FBI involvement makes perfect sense.

As far as background checks go, that’s part of the FBI’s purview on a national level, as anyone who has ever bought a new firearm is aware of.

[jdshock]

Her allegations started 10 years prior and at a different employer than the EEOC. The FBI was instructed to investigate it in light of the nomination. It was not an investigation due to probable cause for criminal purposes. It was at the direction of the president.

[Shockm]

This last allegation is incredible. If it’s true, BK needs to be in jail. I don’t believe it as of now, but he needs to be convicted or exonerated.

Usually charges being brought against the perpetrator proceeds conviction. In this case that may not be true. They don’t proceed with charges because it didn’t happen and have no evidence.

[jdshock]

Everybody who keeps talking about this like it's a criminal case: it's not. Statutes of limitation wouldn't apply. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. Acting like the FBI can't investigate it doesn't apply.

This is a job interview. A job interview for a lifetime appointed position. They can get into whatever they want to get into. There is no burden of proof. There is nothing. If we had video evidence of a supreme court nominee spitting on a black guy fifteen years ago, there almost certainly isn't a prosecutor in the country who would take that case. It'd still be the kind of thing that would prevent them from getting nominated.

And maybe you don't think we should do a more thorough investigation since what we've done to date is sufficient. That's totally fine. But it's not because "oh, well... it'd be tough to get a conviction on this." After the OJ trial, he lost a civil suit. I guarantee he wouldn't have been confirmed to the Supreme Court even though he was technically innocent under the law (in the sense that he was not proven guilty).

[wufan]

Everybody who keeps talking about this like it's a criminal case: it's not. Statutes of limitation wouldn't apply. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. Acting like the FBI can't investigate it doesn't apply.

This is a job interview. A job interview for a lifetime appointed position. They can get into whatever they want to get into. There is no burden of proof. There is nothing. If we had video evidence of a supreme court nominee spitting on a black guy fifteen years ago, there almost certainly isn't a prosecutor in the country who would take that case. It'd still be the kind of thing that would prevent them from getting nominated.

And maybe you don't think we should do a more thorough investigation since what we've done to date is sufficient. That's totally fine. But it's not because "oh, well... it'd be tough to get a conviction on this." After the OJ trial, he lost a civil suit. I guarantee he wouldn't have been confirmed to the Supreme Court even though he was technically innocent under the law (in the sense that he was not proven guilty).

I disagree with your opening paragraph. Guilt or innocence is the determining factor for me. Here say is irrelevant when it is coming from your political enemy.

[jdshock]

Guilt/innocence is a determining factor for YOU. Objectively, however, this is not a criminal proceeding.

Because of that, talking about statutes of limitation, or burden of proof, or anything like that as if they applied--in a legal context--are totally out of place. Now, we each have our own burden of proof in a hiring context. For example, MANY employers would've just picked the next resume in the stack as soon as any baseless accusation was made. Why deal with the headache of that employee even if they're innocent, you know?

I do have a hard time believing that someone saying "innocent until proven guilty" truly believe that in the sense of criminal law for a supreme court justice. You're telling me that if Ford had civilly sued Kavanaugh, and she won, you would still be all for confirming Kavanaugh? He would still be innocent in the eyes of the law.

Even so, that would be your own personal standard, which is fine. But we cannot act like that is the objective legal standard by which the Senate has to vote. This is not a criminal proceeding.

Edit to make even more clear: Kavanaugh could admit he did it and still be confirmed. Ford could admit she's lying and the Senate could vote him down. It's not a criminal hearing.

[ShockCrazy]

At this point I have no idea what the Repulican/Mitchell's strategy is. They have 15 minutes left with Ford, and I really don't know what they have accomplished other than bumble around like this is a criminal case asking questions that would only be useful in that setting.

[Kung Wu]

The FBI investigations that need to happen are to look into the accusers to see if there is perjury, slander or libel occurring; and whether there is collusion with the Democrat party. I do think raiding their attorneys offices to see if those crimes have been committed makes sense at this point. Also, those crimes would have been committed well within the statute of limitations.

[SHOCKvalue]

No one is under the impression this is a criminal trial.

Feel like that is a premise looking for an origin. Chicken and the egg.

The lady the Republicans hired to speak on their behalf acts and sounds like a trial attorney because she’s a trial attorney.

[jdshock]

Coulda fooled me. The number of times I've seen "statute of limitations" thrown around on here, I would've had no idea people understood criminal procedure doesn't apply. Though, hilariously, one of the articles shared a few pages back acting like this is Orwellian in nature called it the "statue" of limitations.

[SHOCKvalue]

Probably because most people associate the terms “FBI” and “investigation” with a criminal proceeding.

Wild guess...

Who knew they could be engaged as political consultants?

[SHOCKvalue]

Grassley.... oh, Grassley.

[ShockerPrez]

I'm thinking the republicans are just going to let Kavanaugh speak for himself. And also hope the American people don't believe Ford.

The third hope would be that in the next few hours, the Dems begin to savage what the American people believe to be a wrongfully accused man. I mean, they are going to savage him, they can't help it. It just depends on how it will be perceived....

[WuDrWu]

Holy crap he's pissed.