kavanaughs accuser comes forward

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It could have also been held on the request of the accuser. I doubt anyone wants to step into the spotlight like this...they could have held it back until they needed it as a measure of last resort.

Fair enough.

The accuser claims to have told a psychiatrist there were 4 people in the room, her letter to Feinstein says there was one person in the room, and that one person denies that there was an assault. There is no credibility here, none, although something else can come to light.

In every possible sense except the political, this is, as you would say, a nothingburger, a non-starter. Unfortunately for Kavanaugh and his kids, the political sense is all that matters now.

He still gets confirmed, and then the party of the Clintons and the Kennedys will tell America that they care about chivalry.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The accuser claims to have told a psychiatrist there were 4 people in the room, her letter to Feinstein says there was one person in the room, and that one person denies that there was an assault. There is no credibility here, none, although something else can come to light.

The psychiatrist rapidly writing things down could have simply made a mistake. I think the fact that there is 6 year old documentation of an event makes it unlikely the entire thing is a fabrication although it also doesn't mean it's true. She reportedly passed a polygraph test also.

That the witness denies it doesn't kill the story as he has every motive to lie.

That being said, given how hard these guys partied in school it's possible neither remembers anything about it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The psychiatrist rapidly writing things down could have simply made a mistake. I think the fact that there is 6 year old documentation of an event makes it unlikely the entire thing is a fabrication although it also doesn't mean it's true. She reportedly passed a polygraph test also.

That the witness denies it doesn't kill the story as he has every motive to lie.

That being said, given how hard these guys partied in school it's possible neither remembers anything about it.

Is it also possible that this is pure political BS?

"That the witness denies it doesn't kill the story as he has every motive to lie."

He does? He was a witness not a participant.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is it also possible that this is pure political BS?

Unlikely for the reasons I cited above.

He does? He was a witness not a participant.

Sure, he wrote a book that goes into their their hard partying days. If it could have resulted in an assault that doesn't look good for him.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Unlikely for the reasons I cited above.


Sure, he wrote a book that goes into their their hard partying days. If it could have resulted in an assault that doesn't look good for him.

Do you even walk upright? Or when you walk, are you bent 45 degrees to the left?

So we are all responsible for the actions of those who drank with us in high school? If I'm at a party hanging out with my friends, and someone who I have nothing to do with commits a crime, that says something about me? What, exactly?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We need term limits and to take the money and the domination by lawyers out of politics.
It is that simple.

Personal donations of $100 max. No Corps, No PACs, no Unions

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Personal donations of $100 max. No Corps, No PACs, no Unions

Tell that to Citizens United.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So we are all responsible for the actions of those who drank with us in high school? If I'm at a party hanging out with my friends, and someone who I have nothing to do with commits a crime, that says something about me? What, exactly?

If the accuser's account is true he would have been complicit in a crime.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That the witness denies it doesn't kill the story as he has every motive to lie.
.

The nominee is portrayed as a threat to Roe V Wade, so the left also has every motive to lie and derail his nomination.

The FBI does a background check on the nominee. Why wasn't the letter given to the FBI, at that time?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The FBI does a background check on the nominee. Why wasn't the letter given to the FBI, at that time?

How would she have known the FBI was performing a background check? Even then, if he wasn't charged at the time the FBI wouldn't have had anything to find, it's a background check for items on the record.

[Slipknot]

https://af-mg.com/2018/09/17/breakin...was-the-judge/


I bet there is a LOT more to the story than any speculation here on SB.com

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How would she have known the FBI was performing a background check? Even then, if he wasn't charged at the time the FBI wouldn't have had anything to find, it's a background check for items on the record.

The accuser would not have known. But Senator Diane Feinstein knows, and she had the letter since July.

Kavanaigh has gone through six different background checks in his years of service.

"it's a background check for items on the record"

And you know this how, exactly? They don't make any additional inquiries? And IF that's true, that's more reason for Feinstein to have gotten this on the record before they started the check.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And you know this how, exactly? They don't make any additional inquiries? And IF that's true, that's more reason for Feinstein to have gotten this on the record before they started the check.

There's only so much research they can do...what are they supposed to interview every person he's ever had contact with?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There's only so much research they can do...what are they supposed to interview every person he's ever had contact with?

I agree they can't spend 100 years looking., But it sounds like you completely made it up, when you said they can only investigate what's already on the record.

I doubt anyone, on either side, would consider it frivolous to investigate a sexual assault complaint. Not yet anyway, but in short order, your side will make sexual assault accusations as utterly meaningless as they have already made racism accusations.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

How would she have known the FBI was performing a background check? Even then, if he wasn't charged at the time the FBI wouldn't have had anything to find, it's a background check for items on the record.

That's weird, when I go through my background check for work, they talk to neighbors, friends, former employers, and people I currently work with. and I'm just a nobody. Are you saying that they don't dig as deep for a possible SC Justice?

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That's weird, when I go through my background check for work, they talk to neighbors, friends, former employers, and people I currently work with. and I'm just a nobody. Are you saying that they don't dig as deep for a possible SC Justice?

Was speaking about an obscure event from decades ago. If there's nothing on the record what do they have to research? It's not likely a family member is going to be like, oh and that time he assaulted someone.

You're check was for clearance I'm assuming, I don't think SCOTUS have that.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Tell that to Citizens United.

Hahaha - there's the rub ; )

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The accuser would not have known. But Senator Diane Feinstein knows, and she had the letter since July.

Kavanaigh has gone through six different background checks in his years of service.

"it's a background check for items on the record"

And you know this how, exactly? They don't make any additional inquiries? And IF that's true, that's more reason for Feinstein to have gotten this on the record before they started the check.

Sure smells like a tactic - everything is a tactic.