Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Mister Agenda]

If someone accused me of attempted rape, I would be delighted for the FBI to investigate it, because I know when they got to the bottom of it, there won't be anything there. And if I was a witness to the supposed attempted rape and knew that's not what happened at all, I would be happy to testify under oath to that effect.

Indeed. So would I. First, they would need details like the year it supposedly happened and where it might have occurred. As far as we know, neither has been provided. There's nothing to investigate. It would be like you applying for a job and I told your prospective employer that you embezzled money from some company, sometime, somewhere. The most you could say is that you don't know what I was talking about.

I am certainly capable of carrying out that sort of an investigation. For instance, knowing the age of the embezzler at the time and knowing their current age, I believe I would have a good chance of narrowing down the range of years it could have occurred in. I have a brilliant deductive mind like that.

---

On what do you rest that doubt?

Anyone named as involved by Ford says it never happened.

They're refusing to say it under oath....

As previously noted, no other women have come forward with accusations.

The ship of that objection seems to have sailed....

---

Sen. Diane Feinstein sat on Ford’s letter since July. She didn’t care enough give it to the FBI back then. She didn’t share it with the Committee during the confirmation hearings. No. She waited to the last minute after the voluminous document requests, paid protesters, and misrepresentations of his civil rights record didn’t work.

Or to put it a thousand times more honestly, she did not disclose the information given her in confidence until the alleged victim gave her permission.

---

I hear a lot of people saying things like "if it is true" but what I am not hearing is this. If the allegations are false how can he prove his innocence?

As the allegations don't have to be proven true to block his confirmation, the don't have to be proven false to permit it. It's not a court of law. If he is not confirmed, he keeps his current position. If the committee finds the accusation to be hard to believe after hearing what the FBI has determined, they are perfectly within their rights to confirm Kavanaugh. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is not a requirement.

---

Odd that your conscience is OK with the whole guilty until proven innocent thing.

The Senate is not a court and cannot find Kavanaugh guilty (or innocent) of this crime. The worst they can do is deny him a promotion.

---

This is NOT a criminal court of law; there are different standards of evidence for different courts in the United States and elsewhere throughout the (free) World.

Yep, it's a Senate thing only. Yet, you guys are acting as if the Senate should do whatever you say.

When confirming a Supreme Court nominee, the Senate Judicial Committee should always have such accusations investigated. It's one of the things the FBI is for.

---

Then, answer my question -- If he admitted to Ford's accusations, would you continue to support him as a SCOTUS nominee?

Yes. Because he would have been a minor. IMO it is unethical to hold adults accountable for their entire lives because of juvenile crimes. Do you agree or not? Do you feel crimes committed when someone was a minor should punish them for the rest of their lives and prevent them from achieving as much as they possibly could as adults?

Our justice system certainly doesn't agree with you. We try minors as adults for lesser offenses all the time. If you can commit a crime that damages a person for the rest of their life, you can be held accountable for it the rest of your life, especially if you were never held accountable at the time.

This isn't trespassing or smoking weed or accumulating parking tickets or underage drinking. It's attempted rape. One of these things is not like the others.

---

It seems to me, that they are investigating the matter. They have delayed a number of times to try to accommodated Dr. Ford, and to hear her out. She has made some pretty unreasonable demands. And if she doesn’t want to testify to the committee, then heir is little more to be done.

The unreasonable demand that the FBI investigate and share its findings before she testifies?

[Angrboda]

If you’re 17 years old and arrested for a crime, where you go depends mostly on what state you happen to live in. Although prosecutors and judges are usually able to pull teenagers out of the juvenile court system and charge them as adults if the crime is severe enough, nine states automatically classify 17-year-olds as adults. In North Carolina and New York, 16-year-olds always face adult courts.

(Marshall Project)

Apparently the count is currently five: Texas, Georgia, Wisconsin, Missouri and Michigan (that article is from 2015). It's worth noting, however, that not holding 17 year olds accountable as adults is a recent trend, and one that has been excepted in many cases. Regardless, if Kavanaugh is guilty of lying now as an adult, he's not fit to serve on the Supreme Court. Whether his actions as a 17 year old render him unfit to serve is a matter of judgement. I don't think the rightness and wrongness of rape is sufficiently ambiguous for a seventeen year old to use that as an excuse not to hold him accountable. What exactly is your argument that we should not hold a 17 year old accountable for an attempted rape, Neo? You seem to admit that if he had succeeded in raping Ms. Blasey Ford that he would quite possibly have been tried as an adult. Why is he less accountable simply because he didn't succeed?

[Mister Agenda]

Er, OK, she said there was a party with 4 other people, and none of the other 4 have any recollection of such a party. Happy now? It doesn't change anything.

I figured you guys would cut hairs rather than let it go. You didn't disappoint.

The other people CLAIM to have no recollection of the party. An investigation might uphold those claims. Or not.

---

The Republicans are eager to end this.  If those four can testify that the party didn't happen, why don't the Republicans subpoena them and end this?  Explain that.

Maybe they will, but it seems unnecessary. Exactly what questions would you have the committee ask about a party that they weren't at?

How about where were you? Who was with you? Did you know Ford? Kavanaugh? Judge? Smyth? Why do you think Ford would claim you were at a party that you did not attend? Did you ever go to any parties with any of these people?

But I have a brilliant investigative mind, and know what questions to ask. It's too much to expect ordinary people to have an inkling of how to imagine such.

---

I wonder...how would a mother with sons today advise him to assure he can never be 'credibly ' accused at any time for the rest of his life? Seems to me like the bar for credibly is very low.

---

He could have been tried as an adult for his crimes, and so, yes, if true, I think that his behavior disqualifies him from being an associate SCOTUS judge.

Usually that requires a prior record of offenses and or an actual rape or murder.

Don't have nights where you drink so much that you black out and can't remember what you did would be step in the right direction.

Getting denied a promotion is a slap on the wrist, hardly the punishment he would have gotten as a juvenile had he been convicted then (months, maybe up to a year in juvie).

No one is entitled to be made a supreme court justice. Not getting to be one is not a punishment. Heck, Reagan's nominee Douglas Ginsberg shouldn't have been withdrawn due to pot smoking in college IMHO, but that administration preferred nominees with no appearance of impropriety.

[Jehanne]

When confirming a Supreme Court nominee, the Senate Judicial Committee should always have such accusations investigated. It's one of the things the FBI is for.

---

According to DT, though, the FBI is "crooked", like Hillary!

[Rev. Rye]

Odd that your conscience is OK with the whole guilty until proven innocent thing.

The Senate is not a court and cannot find Kavanaugh guilty (or innocent) of this crime. The worst they can do is deny him a promotion.

Yep, it's a Senate thing only. Yet, you guys are acting as if the Senate should do whatever you say.

Actually, the Senate can actually be a court and find someone guilty: it’s called impeachment, and, that said, I doubt that that applies, and I seriously doubt that a Republican-controlled Congress will even sign off on such a thing.

[John V]

Er, OK, she said there was a party with 4 other people, and none of the other 4 have any recollection of such a party. Happy now? It doesn't change anything.

I figured you guys would cut hairs rather than let it go. You didn't disappoint.

The other people CLAIM to have no recollection of the party. An investigation might uphold those claims. Or not.

---

Maybe they will, but it seems unnecessary. Exactly what questions would you have the committee ask about a party that they weren't at?  

How about where were you? Who was with you?

They can't ask those, as Ford doesn't know when or where the assault allegedly occurred.

Did you know Ford? Kavanaugh? Judge? Smyth?

OK. These would at best help Kavanaugh.

Why do you think Ford would claim you were at a party that you did not attend? Did you ever go to any parties with any of these people?

Their opinions on why she might make that claim are irrelevant. They're not psychology expert witnesses.

But I have a brilliant investigative mind, and know what questions to ask.

No, you don't.

[Mister Agenda]

The Senate is not a court and cannot find Kavanaugh guilty (or innocent) of this crime. The worst they can do is deny him a promotion.

Yep, it's a Senate thing only. Yet, you guys are acting as if the Senate should do whatever you say.

Actually, the Senate can actually be a court and find someone guilty: it’s called impeachment, and, that said, I doubt that that applies, and I seriously doubt that a Republican-controlled Congress will even sign off on such a thing.

Impeachment is leveling charges, not conviction.

---

The other people CLAIM to have no recollection of the party. An investigation might uphold those claims. Or not.

---

How about where were you? Who was with you?

They can't ask those, as Ford doesn't know when or where the assault allegedly occurred.

Did you know Ford? Kavanaugh? Judge? Smyth?

OK. These would at best help Kavanaugh.

Why do you think Ford would claim you were at a party that you did not attend? Did you ever go to any parties with any of these people?

Their opinions on why she might make that claim are irrelevant. They're not psychology expert witnesses.

But I have a brilliant investigative mind, and know what questions to ask.

No, you don't.

The Senate can ask anything. Including whether the witness under oath was ever at a party resembling the one Ford describes or ever at a party with Kavanaugh or Judge. You know how questions work, don't you? And that the hearing is not a court of law? It's just a freaking job interview, the main purpose of which is to determine of the nominee has any issued that disqualify them from confirmation.

[Rev. Rye]

Actually, the Senate can actually be a court and find someone guilty: it’s called impeachment, and, that said, I doubt that that applies, and I seriously doubt that a Republican-controlled Congress will even sign off on such a thing.

Impeachment is leveling charges, not conviction.

Actually, it's a two step-process: the first is leveling charges, and the second is conviction. And once the House says there's legitimate cause to charge an official, it's the Senate's job to try (and potentially acquit or convict) that official. That said, while it seems that, of the 19 people to be impeached, the only eight to be convicted have been federal judges, at any rate, since the allegations happened before I was born, they're both most likely outside the statute of limitations and can't actually be impeachment material. That said, there is no reason that he's the one who deserves to go on the Supreme Court.

[John V]

The Senate can ask anything.

Yep. I said that they can't ask where the others were at the time of the alleged party because we don't know the time of the alleged party, not because the Senate is prohibited from asking it. I noted that.

Including whether the witness under oath was ever at a party resembling the one Ford describes

They've all said they don't recall such a party. Would you just feel better if they were asked under oath? Do you think this will be like Perry mason and they'll all confess on the stand?

or ever at a party with Kavanaugh or Judge. You know how questions work, don't you? And that the hearing is not a court of law? It's just a freaking job interview, the main purpose of which is to determine of the nominee has any issued that disqualify them from confirmation.

They've got answers to the relevant questions. In one breath you demand that they give such answer under oath, in the next you say it's just a freaking job interview. Job interviews don't require your references to testify under oath.

[Jehanne]

And, as has been mentioned, here comes #2:

Ramirez said that, when both she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, she was invited by a friend on the women's soccer team to a dorm-room party. She recalled that the party took place in a suite at Lawrance Hall, in the part of Yale known as Old Campus, and that a small group of students decided to play a drinking game together. "We were sitting in a circle," she said. "People would pick who drank." Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)

A third male student then exposed himself to her. "I remember a penis being in front of my face," she said. "I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind." She recalled remarking, "That's not a real penis," and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to "kiss it." She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. "I wasn't going to touch a penis until I was married," she said. "I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated." She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. "Brett was laughing," she said. "I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants." She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. "Somebody yelled down the hall, 'Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie's face,'" she said. "It was his full name. I don't think it was just 'Brett.' And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there."

Electoral-Vote.com -- And Then There Were Two