UKC

A drama that gives me pause for thought.

My first reaction to the allegation from Christine Ford was that society shouldn't punish a man in his fifties for something he did as a teenager and as an adult may well bitterly regret. How many of us were perfect teenagers?

It then occurred to me that the allegation was worth making public because it may make others come out as well if, in fact Kavanaugh is a persistent sex pest. Now it seems there are further allegations and if proved true, should bar him from the office he has been nominated for.

I also wonder about the conduct of the Democrats. I get the impression they have been doing their upmost to dig up the dirt on this guy. Is it acceptable to go out to drag someone's reputation through the mud in order to win the main prize?

It's worth noting that Kavanaugh is not being punished, and that this is not a trial. It's a (rather complicated) job interview. The guy's life is not "ruined", he will still be a judge. 

Caesar's wife must be above suspicion? Apparently not anymore

Appointing judges should not be a political or Democrat/Republican thing. But it is. So the Dems are doing what the Dems have to do to scrutinise the nominee.That's ugly but it is the American way.

As a Supreme Court judge, I’d have thought (hoped) he would be held to a standard of behaviour somewhat higher than the rest of the American spring term jocks are. I also think the treatment that Ford is receiving is pretty unedifying.

But I happen to think it is inappropriate that the senate hearings are the place for these allegations to be tested. If there is a complaint to be made, it should be laid before the police and they carry out the investigation to see if there is a case to answer before a court, the fact this hasn’t happened you can’t help feel there is a political dimension to the allegation.

I was disturbed yesterday by Kavanaughs rant against the democrats.  For a non partisan position that was extraordinary and on its own a reason to dump him in my opinion.

American politics is way too partisan now and seems to be close to breaking

If he is innocent and genuinely believes that the whole thing is an underhand democrat set up to destroy his reputation and career in order to stop his appointment, then I think it is entirely understandable and justifiable. 

And do not underestimate how politically critical this appointment is. It is barely exagerating to say it could define the direction of the US for a generation; the democrats have every motivation to block it.

I really don't know what to make of it, except that it seems extraordinary from a British perspective that the most powerful legal positions in the US are so completely politicised.

All terrifyingly unedifying.

If it was a set up he wouldn't be resistant to taking a lie detector test (as she has done).   

I believe she is telling the truth.   There seems to be a culture of "boys will be boys" in parts of the US and a tendency to treat consent as optional as long as you are white rich and sporty.  

There is a difference between teenage behaviour and sexual assault.  

That is something which ought to be decided in a court of law, not by public opinion in this fevered political situation.

The timing of the allegations just seems a bit fishy to me.

I agree with you. And it runs right to the top. Remember how Trump dismissed the insulting/insensitive remarks he made about women during his election campaign? He called it "locker room talk", so in his eyes that's alright then. He didn't understand that in many circumstances, "what's said in the locker room should stay in the locker room"

My understanding is that the original allegations, specifically against him, came up in the notes from couples counselling in 2012. Certainly pre- any whiff of Trump, or of Kavanaugh appearing on the supreme court.

Have you seen who they have running the courts?!  

Grab them by the pussy.

No I don't think any woman has forgotten that the man in charge of the USA said that.  

It's a very high level job interview. It is about good candidate or bad candidate That is not for a court of law. Jobs aren't decided on "beyond reasonable doubt".

It is a highly political appointment so it should be in public. As a partisan political appointment why should it be independent of public opinion?

It is highly partisan which is a *spectacularly* crap way of deciding an independent non-politicised judiciary.

I don't agree. Probably the majority of sexual assaults on a child don't get reported at the time (or ever) but if there are any skeletons in the cupboard this is when we'd hear about them.

Well yes, the whole system is pretty screwed up and somebody with Kavavaugh's political views joining the Supreme Court can only make things worse - probably Trump's longest lasting damaging legacy....... but that is why the Democrats have such a strong motive to stop it.

My point was that his guilt or not should ideally have been decided by a court of law prior to this job interview. I think the appointment should clearly now be delayed until the law has run its course.

I mean there’s not being a perfect teenager and then there’s sexual assault. Where would you draw the line for what should be forgivable teenage behaviour for someone in their 50’s? Obviously above sexual assault (from what you wrote) but maybe below murder? 

Not if Ford's testimony is to be believed.

Fishy as in you don't believe they are true or fishy as in the Dems are now fighting dirty? Remember there's a high probability it would not have reached this stage if the GOP had been candid about his background. These allegations have surfaced outside the vetting process but it seems there are several allegations relating to other things that have been surpressed, you have to ask why.

I've no idea whether they are true - it just seems to be her word against his; if it's not a case of mistaken identity, then one of them is an extremely good actor.

I meant fishy in that the Democrats might be fighting dirty (because the motivation to block the appointment is massive). But I really hope they are not.

A court will find him not guilty since there’s not enough evidence for beyond reasonable doubt...doesn’t mean he didn’t do it though.

This whole thing is the just the reality of having a constitutional court.  All law can be interpreted in different ways and if judges are top they get to decide what the law is.  It’s a big reason why Trump won.

The timing is excellent. Until recently people hadn’t really heard of Kavanaugh so an accusation now regarding such a politically sensitive appointment means the accusers will be listened to far more thoroughly than before he was considered for this position. The current climate for Me Too helps too. Had they raised this years before they may well have got nowhere.

I agree that a court of law is the correct way forward to establish what happened.

That's the obvious solution but I don't see the full investigation and start again scenario happening because:

a. the Republicans think they will lose their majority at the midterm elections.  A Democrat controlled Senate wouldn't confirm him irrespective of this issue.  The Republicans don't have time to start the process again with a new candidate and if they can rush his confirmation through they can control the Supreme Court for potentially 20 years.  On the other hand if they side too strongly with him and the scandal keeps running it's not going to help them in the midterm elections.

b. it is so long ago that the chance of getting evidence to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard of a court is probably slim and some/all of the allegations may be past the statute of limitations.  But the standard of proof for choosing not to hire someone doesn't need to be as high as the standard for a criminal conviction.    If there is a substantial chance that a candidate is a sex offender then most organisations would go with someone else as a precaution.

c. There's only a two seat majority for the Republicans anyway.  It just takes a couple of republican senators to switch sides and he won't be confirmed if it goes to the full house.   If it becomes clear they don't have the votes the Republicans will probably drop the nomination or he'll withdraw so as to kill the story quietly.

It's not just that. She (non political, academic) has no reason to make this up.  He has every reason to deny it.  The mistaken identity possibility seems very unlikely since there are several further similar accusations around.  I'd say it's pretty certain he behaved  along the lines claimed, and fairly regularly for a least his time at high-school and university.  Of course that's a long way from being provable but that shouldn't be needed for this sort of job.  

If she's a democrat supporter and doesn't want this judge to be picked she has reason to make it up.  Not being a politician doesn't make you apolitical.

Edit - and apparently she is a registered democrat.

Apparently the accuser wanted it to be kept private and investigated without publicity. Somehow that did not happen , no one seems sure how that confidentiality was breached. What we do know is that political opponents that are now calling for an FBI investigation ( which was ongoing, now closed) to be reopened, but it emerges they were in possession on these accusations before the FBI investigation was closed, and failed to rais the matter until 2 days before the vote on his nomination.

This  is not a party trying to get at the 'truth' , this is clearly a party intent on making political mischief, whilst not caring what the effects are on the individuals and families on both sides. 

There has been no criminal accusation by the complainer, no police investigation has been carried out, none is planned. 

Any talk of a court case is a red herring. It is a matter of speculation as to why the complainer has not taken her claim of attempted rape to the police. 

I'm amazed anyone could 'buy' such a line.   She is and academic and knows the score.  She will be questioned and vilified in some quarters for the rest of her life. 

I should imagine meeting privileged young men who believed that could get away with such shit (and seemed to be correct in that for decades) would be a key motive in becoming a Democrat.

If you watched the hours of live TV on the Senate Committee ( as I assume you have) then I can't understand how you can say that they are just 'scrutinising the nominee '.

They have clearly not participated in aspects of the scrutiny committees work, whilst at the same time withholding pertinent information/ accusations from the committee for about 60 days, only to reveal it 2 days before the vote on the nomination. 

Whether the guy is guilty of attempted rape or not , I have no clue, but the political meddling in this process is what is most ugly .

Buy what line?  I'm not saying she's definitely lying, I'm saying she has motivation to do so.

Are you saying that she doesn't have any motivation to lie, or that it being a lie is completely impossible?  All complainants are necessarily victims?

If you watched the hours of live TV on the Senate Committee ( as I assume you have) then I can't understand how you can say that they are just 'scrutinising the nominee '.

They have clearly not participated in aspects of the scrutiny committees work, whilst at the same time withholding pertinent information/ accusations from the committee for about 60 days, only to reveal it 2 days before the vote on the nomination. 

Whether the guy is guilty of attempted rape or not , I have no clue, but the political meddling in this process is what is most ugly .

That's not  a credible reason really, is it?  Someone with no political, acting or self-publicising background suddenly decides their life mission is preventing a judge being appointed by making up unprovable stories of sexual attack from decades ago.  An approach that will result in them being demonised for life in some quarters and completely upend their stable, professional life.  The mistaken identity possibility is just about conceivable.

Yes, Im saying the idea that being a Democrat would motivate her to do what she has done is simply ridiculous.

Apparently she's a registered democrat who makes donations, she's got political history.  The people upset with her aren't people she cares for the opinions of.  She works in a university in California, and I can't see why this should upset her professional life.

It puts her in the public eye and causes her a lot of stress, absolutely (huge support though as well as attacks).  On the other hand, the appointment is extremely important.  As others have said, it sets the views of the court for decades to come.

She started to make these statements in 2012 - that would have to be some forethought and planning if her motivations are as you suggest.

And the whole world would like to know what happened.

Then you have no imagination whatsoever.  People accuse others of crimes for much less worthy causes.

This is a political appointment, that will have repercussions for at least 20 years. You're surprised the Democrats are attempting to block a Republican nominee?

Fine, you think supporting a certain political viewpoint is a reason to fabricate wild stories about sexual attack.  Utterly barking, but still.

Edit: See Blanche du Bois's post too.

And of course the Republicans blocked an Obama nomination for almost 300 days, until Trump got in and they replaced him with their own.  Nothing political there......

This is part of how only a quarter of UK rapes are reported to CPS and less than a third of prosecutions end up with convictions. Thinking about imagining feint possibilities rather than looking at likely motives and the evidence. Yes its theoretically possible she lied but if her accusations are true (mistaken identity being his only logical reasonable escape... and I'd say such people won't normally forget such things) the likelihood of Kavanah telling the truth in my view is vanishingly small (as it would end him). So we face a very small chance she lied versus highly unlikely for him to tell the truth if its true.

Maybe its a generation thing. When I grew up a lot of very bad stuff was happening that took decades to come out (like all these historical abuse cases) and the attitude towards and treatment of too many women was pretty nasty. I studied at Oxbridge where the behavior towards women of drunken college rugby players would have embarrassed my home town yobs.

It reminds me of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Some of the Republican behaviour to her was outrageous all for the sake of impeaching Clinton. Read an article about the prosecutor at the time- Kenneth Starr- and the way they threatened Lewinsky with jail if she did not testify.Looking back and the effect it personally had on her, it would seem the Republicans have still not learnt any lessons about how to handle such things.

The more egregious withholding of information has been by the GOP who have background information  on Kavanaugh the have fought tooth and nail to prevent being released. This issue aside, for an appointment like this there ought to nothing about the appointees background that is too controversial to release.

It's a political process, made more so by:

a) the GOP blocking all Obamas nominees for a year, against precedent.

b) the fact that he is being appointed with the specific intention (although denied by the GOP and Kavanaugh himself) to overturn a constitutional issue in favour of the most right wing and evangelical wing of the population. 

Yes. I think there's fairly good evidence that, for the Republican party's religious backers (conservative and evangelical Christians), the supreme court is the prize, and Trump is just the means to get it. If your objective is to roll-back women's reproductive rights and church-state separation then a sympathetic court means you can obtain and lock-in legal changes over many multiples of presidential terms. Same for the business and private wealth backers who want to target employment rights and environmental protection.

If Kavanaugh is approved then these groups have a fairly reliable majority, and they could even think about burning Trump and installing Pence. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 85 and can't really go on forever, so there may even be an opportunity to replace her soon too - then they'd really own the court and lots of really radical things would become possible.

As stated , this information has been around a while, but he hasn't been in the media till recently.  There are a number of other complaints too though a the latest (of the 5 I have seen reported) are very dubious.  This could be mistaken identity, but she knew the name, and that of his friend, a very long time ago.

I do not know if any charges could be pressed now - statute of limitations, plus a rape or assualt case of this age would be difficult.  

Obviously the thing is being rushed through - if the republicans lose the senate in a couple of weeks then there will be an impasse on a lot of appointments and selecting extremely partisan supreme court judges is Trumps primary appeal to conservatives - it is an absolute core policy

And of course Kavanaugh was on of Starr's counsel during those inquiries, and the one who insisted on not giving Clinton "any break" regarding the details of his sexual relationship with Lewinsky. As I understand it, Kavanaugh abhors  hypocrisy, but is always prepared to make an exception in his own case.

Has it?  What information is there out there?  All I've seen is that she claims she named him in private.  Not saying there's nothing else, I just don't know.

My point was that there's motivation, not that she's lying.

Agree, as said above.  He'd likely be found not guilty, which wouldn't mean he didn't do it.

Absolutely.

Offwidth - your anecdotes about other people's bad behaviour do not make this guy guilty.

From the news reports ive seen, neither party seems to come well from this....  partisan politics 

LIFETIME TERMS? Checks & Balances? Political apointee judiaciary? WTAF?

D

Im not sure what to think.

I did note she said she was coming forward now as it was her civic duty.  Why not earlier, when he was simply a judge, surely that is an important position and that he shouldn't hold if these allegations were well founded.

And the world of the USA judiciary is a strange place.

Who would have thought somebody like Sessions would turn out to be a stalwart of the law and applying it to Trump.

I wasn't commenting on his guilt or innocence. I was dismissing your view: that she might be lying because she is a Democrat is ridiculous. History shows us sex crimnals nearly always lie, even when presented with overwhelming evidence.

Plus I was pointing out as a country we have a poor record of prosecuting sex crimes partly because people will imagine all sorts of nonsense and ignore the more obvious stuff in front of them. The link below is one of the latest problems women face if they wish to report such a crime in some parts of the UK. The level of reported sex crimes that never get reported is a harder figure to pin down, than the poor rate of prosecutions and the poor rate of convictions, but you can be sure its also pretty poor and that such policies won't help.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/25/revealed-uk-police-demandin...

That is difficult but most people even today understand that it is not easy for victims to come forward.

I assume you understand this.

Yes, my first reaction was that teenagers do bad things because they don't know any different and I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that while some groping and wrestling went on things stopped before an offence was committed. If my original assumption is wrong and a criminal act did occur then he is unfit to be someone who rules on things like abortion rights as he is unlikely to have a particularly high regard for women.

If he had murdered someone would that make him ineligible? Actually I don't necessarily think it would. If he had served his punishment and truly reformed then the experience may well make him a better judge rather than a worse one.

My best guess would be he spent a lot of time drunk as a student, was involved with highly dubious sexual activity up to and possibly including rape, a lot of others were doing similar, he now doesn't really remember details, and in any case doesn't think it was really wrong (everyone in his circle was at it, the women were kind aware it was possible), so he insists nothing happened..  Since then he has calmed down but still sees women as little more than sexual objects and breeders.    Nothing will be provable here but I think his general approach has shown him to be evasive and prone the being highly partisan and a liar (not just on this, see his testimony about meeting other lawyers).  Overall he seems totally unsuitable as a senior judge.  But this is the US...

The incident came up during couples counselling in 2012.  The therapist's notes were turned over to the Washington Post who were happy with their authenticity.  She repeated relating the attempted rape to her therapist under oath during her opening statement in the hearing - so if she's making up the couples counselling stuff it would be pretty dumb of her.

You seem to have a strange fixation on this.  As you ignored my earlier comment, maybe didn't see it, I'll restate it.  If she is politically motivated then it would take extraordinary foreword planning to concoct an event in 2012 on the off-chance that Kavanaugh would be nominated to the supreme court.  And that's ignoring the total absurdity of taking a massive personal hit in order to do so now. 

Did she name Kavanagh?  I've not heard it said that she did, by her or anyone else.  I don't know exactly what was said.  Can you link to it?

Someone asserted that she was apolitical had no motivation.  I posted to point out that as a matter of fact she does have motivation, and on checking that she is involved in politics - on the opposing side.  As said above, if the personal hit is from people that you don't like anyway it's not so much of a hit, and she's being lauded by the side that she does like.

It's notable that her testimony is being accepted, unquestioned, as fact by those people who are politically on her side.

Lie detectors are not admissible evidence, even in US courts. They're simply not reliable.

It isn’t. I doubt many have a clue about her politics. It’s  her testimony and the similar testimony of several other women is being taken as strongly indicative of Kavanaugh’s character and likely behaviour. 

So you think teenage boys ‘groping and wrestling’ girls is ok? 

you were talking about what could be done in youth and excused when the person was ‘found out’ in later life, I threw murder as a potential example. I’m fairly sure there haven’t ever been any Supreme Court Justices who have murdered anyone, time served or not, but I’d be happy to be proved wrong! 

There is actually a much bigger financial scandal in the background. Mortgage fraud and tax evasion at the very least, but potentially bribery and corruption. 

Jeremy Kyle thinks they are......

Apparently she first voiced these allegations against Kavanaugh 6 years ago in 2012, long before Trump's administration, so if this is true, it's difficult to see how her timing is now to upset the political apple cart.

Interesting. Why hasn't more been made of that?

She certainly could not have picked a more difficult time for her to come forward , given the predictable media interest, and political interference.m

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brett-kavanaugh-polygraph-christine-bl...

So did Kavanaugh at one point...

She didn;t really come forward.  Here name was increasingly likely to be exposed, so she "came out".  Something that gives her further credibility, I'd say.

Kavanaugh is saying his teenage references to boof and devil's triangle are farting and drinking rather than what are described as the accepted meanings at the time. Starting to stretch credibility.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17911728/brett-kavanaugh-boof-definition-supr...

Maybe don't spend long Googling those terms at work.

Wow! Just watching the News. Is John Grisham writing this script?!

I was thinking that the validity of what she is saying is at risk of being undermined, because political capital is being made out of her recounting what happened to her. If she's as traumatised by bringing it all back as she sounds, it seems rather sad and like an ugly thing, for what she is saying to be undermined in that way.

I think it's what is known as toxic masculinity? 

And being registered to vote via a party (or as an Independent) as is the norm in the US, does not make you political.

I watched a couple of hours of it live yesterday and whilst the Dems were obviously asking quite hostile questions they were actually asking questions. The GOP were just having a chat giving Kavannagh a chance to re-affirm what a nice chap he was.

This is from a current article in the Washington Post about the American Bar Association's previous assessment of Kavannagh - I guess the ABA is vaguely equivalent of our Law Society but I might be wrong. But to me it just shows that he is not fit to hold office a part of SCOTUS.

"History repeated itself. At least it had a spell of deja vu when the American Bar Association released an extraordinary statement at a crucial moment that raised concerns about Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to a powerful judicial position — just as it had done 12 years earlier.

Late Thursday evening, the ABA called for an FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on his Supreme Court nomination. The warning was all the more remarkable, because just hours earlier, Kavanaugh and his Republican defenders had cited the ABA’s previously glowing endorsement of the nominee — “the gold standard,” as one leading Republican put it.

Flash back to the mid-2000s and another fight in the Senate over Kavanaugh’s nomination to a federal court:

Democrats for three years had been blocking President George W. Bush’s 2003 nomination of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They argued he was biased, as shown by his work as a lawyer for Bush’s presidential campaign, for an independent counsel’s investigation into President Bill Clinton and for other conservative causes.

Republicans kept pushing to make Kavanaugh a judge on the powerful appeals court, year after year. In his defense, they cited multiple reviews by the ABA’s judicial review committee that found him “well qualified” — the big attorney association’s highest possible endorsement, meaning Kavanaugh had outstanding legal abilities and outstanding judicial temperament.

[Analysis: Kavanaugh’s evasive testimony probably wouldn’t have been allowed in his own courtroom]

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”

A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom.

The reviews weren’t all bad.

[ABA, Yale Law School dean call for FBI probe into Kavanaugh allegations, delay in confirmation]

In the end, the ABA committee weighed Kavanaugh’s “solid reputation for integrity, intellectual capacity, and writing and analytical ability” against “concern over whether this nominee is so insulated that he will be unable to judge fairly in the future.” In a split vote, it downgraded the rating of the nominee to simply “qualified” — meaning he met the ABA’s standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.

A day after the ABA lowered its rating, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee called Kavanaugh to return and sit before themand argued about how seriously the ABA’s concerns should be taken.

“They cannot be dismissed, as some of my colleagues suggest, as merely intemperate rants by Democrats on the committee,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued. “Predictably, of course, some are already launching a campaign to denigrate the ABA.”

Some did accuse the ABA of bias. Other Republicans dismissed the warnings and noted the group still found Kavanaugh to be qualified overall.

“Based on your going through that experience, would you recommend that we continue to consult the ABA when it comes to judges?” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) asked Kavanaugh, who laughed and declined to answer.

Two days after the hearing, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend Kavanaugh’s nomination along party lines. The full Senate did much the same later that month — and so Kavanaugh finally became a member of the bench.

In his 12 years on the court, he apparently resolved the ABA’s concerns about his temperament. Kavanaugh cited the bar association’s new unanimous “well qualified” rating for his nomination to the Supreme Court in his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday — an angry, tearful defense against sexual allegations, in which he suggested “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” had inspired his accusers.

“Here’s my understanding,” Graham told other senators afterward, defending Kavanaugh as he had done more than a decade earlier. “If you lived a good life, people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has — the gold standard. His integrity is absolutely unquestioned. He is very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no biases or prejudices. He’s entirely ethical, is a really decent person. He is warm, friendly, unassuming. He’s the nicest person — the ABA.”

But that evening, as Republicans prepared to vote on the nomination, and Democrats accused them of ignoring multiple women’s claims against Kavanaugh, the ABA once again ran up a surprise red flag.

"Deciding to proceed without conducting an additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court,” ABA President Robert Carlson wrote in a letter to key senators.

His group’s endorsement of Kavanaugh notwithstanding, Carlson urged the Senate to pause the confirmation and have the FBI investigate the claims against Kavanaugh before making a decision.

Twelve years earlier, the group’s warnings about Kavanaugh had at least delayed his confirmation for the hours it took senators to debate them.

On Friday morning, Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) dispensed with the new one in less than a minute.

“The ABA president’s opinion doesn’t alter the fact that Judge Kavanaugh received a very well-qualified rating from the ABA standing committee, and the standing committee did not join this letter,” Grassley said, as Republicans prepared to vote.

Not everyone dismissed the warning. “The ABA said it made that request because of its — quote — respect for the rule of law and due process under law,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told the committee, and then stopped mid sentence as background chatter washed over the room.

“I’ll just wait until the staff is done talking over there,” Klobuchar said, rubbing her eyes."

End of Washington Post quote.

Rather sensibly the FBI have been tasked to asses the validity of the accusation, well done America.

But given 1 week to do so, not so well done America.

This is one of my all time favourite bullshit UKC posts.
When did you first know that BK even existed?

"My guess is ..." followed by a ream of speculative crap!

You don't think the clue might have been in the introduction?!

More generally, any deductions from evidence are 'speculative crap', in the sense that they are guesses about the past with varying degrees of probability. Objective certainty isn't something which is given to us humans, on the whole.

jcm

You're guessing (assuming) that someone was probably a rapist due to the 'circle' he was in?

Having watched some of Kavanaugh's extraordinary performance, I am astonished that anyone could consider him suitable to be a judge.

First of all, he's clearly a liar. The lies about his political past during the Senate hearing have been well documented. But it's the little things. Clearly he wasn't known for having a weak stomach but for throwing up from excessive drinking - that's why his best friend wrote about it in his autobiography. Clearly his references to boofing and to Renate and to FFFF meant what they obviously mean, not what he said they meant. Clearly it is just not true that, as he claimed, 'everyone who has ever been before me as a judge' admires his judicial manner; apart from the fact that there has never been a judge in human history of whom this was true, even if by some miracle it did happen to be true, he can't possibly know it. You can say that last one is not lying but bullshitting, if you like, but this is a very bad quality in a judge. Judging is about objectivity and the precise use of words.

Second, he is clearly a political hack who will make no effort at fairness and objectivity in his new role. See his embarrassing rant about the Clintons. Nothing need be said about that; his background as a partisan political hack is well known and is precisely the reason the Republicans want him on the court. He also clearly just doesn't understand his role in all of this; ranting about process and cross-examining people who are tasked by their position with asking you questions is just stupid. He is obviously arrogant and entitled, again both terrible qualities in a judge,

Third, he is evidently a moron. He is capable of saying at one at the same time that he and his family bear Dr Ford no ill-will, and ranting about how this is a total conjob, a smear put up by the Democrats, and so forth. Clearly these two things cannot both be true. The timing might or might not be a plot by the Democrats (not, I would imagine, like most conspiracy theories), but the allegation itself evidently is not a smear, or at least if it is then Dr Ford is telling deliberate untruths, in which case it's difficult to see why our hero's ten-year-old daughter is praying for her (a ludicrous piece of schmaltz which would disqualify any candidate immediately in a just world, but this is America). Being able to hold in your mind two mutually inconsistent notions because you would like to live in a world where they were both true is another terrible quality in a judge.

This stuff matters. Even if he were not in all probability a serial sexual predator, it's obvious that he is not someone who will make a good judge.

jcm

As to whether Dr Ford or he is to be believed, I am surprised that anyone would even consider Kavanaugh a good actor.  In my experience of life, it is very easy for guilty people to put up a great show of indignation; they generally do. Crying, introducing irrelevancies, refusing to answer questions, blethering about how unfair everything is, and whataboutery like asking your interlocutor whether he is perfect, are all, in my experience, things that are commoner among guilty people than innocent ones.

If someone looks the nation in the eye and says I tried to rape them, I don't scream and shout, I sit down calmly and say, this did not happen, let us hear what is alleged and I will answer your questions about it. I don't talk about how it can't be true because I'm the kind of guy who goes to church and absolutely loves coaching girls' basketball (especially the latter, frankly). In my experience of senior judges, I simply cannot imagine any of them behaving in a fashion remotely like Kavanaugh did. They understand that both sides have to be heard and a decision reached based on evidence.

jcm

I'd imagine the sworn testimony by another woman that she observed Kavanaugh raping someone might feed into MG's view that he was 'possibly' (not probably) a rapist.

jcm

This is the USA and unfortunately Senior Judges, etc. are seemingly part and parcel of the Political process.  From a UK point of view utterly unacceptable, but it seems that's the way they like to do things... 

I haven't seen that testimony as yet.  Will have to Google it...

Err no. Because of the testimony of several women.

a few weeks ago. Why?

Its a little more than speculation given the evidence but, yes, as I said a best guess.

Absolutely agree. It's incredible that anyone that thinks that pantomine befitting a judge.

After first hearing him on the radio, I thought he came across as perhaps justifiably very angry, but having watched seen it on TV, he somehow really did come across as pretty repellent and creepy.

I'm sceptical that anything more will be discovered either way, given the very limited time and scope of the investigation. Its clearly nothing more than an attempt at creating a pause and distraction, plus political cover for Jeff Flake to allow him to vote in favour of the nomination with the appearance of a clear concience.

(It is worth remembering that the nomination has to be approved by the whole senate, and the judiciary committee vote is just advisory. I still think the fix is in though, and he'll be approved.)

If the investigation turns something evidential up, all well and good it has been worthwhile, if the investigation needs more time, even the little fingered orange man’s pronouncements won’t stop it, America isn’t North Korea, the law is applied equally (well in theory as long as you’re not a young black male), but I do recognise the validity of your point about about Flake, actually it looks like a rather an astute move on his part.

It's pure ass-covering, isn't it?  He doesn't want to be seen to be the one who blocked the nomination because it would upset the people who vote for him, so he "astutely" finds a way to give it the OK when he doesn't actually think that it is OK.

In other words, he's lying.

In other, other words: he's a politician.

How exactly is he lying? I can see he understands the politics of the situation and he has found a way to diffuse that. But he’s also instigated an investigation of the allegations by a serious law enforcement organisation ( the one week thing is a bit of a red herring, they’ll have a pretty good idea of the merits of the allegations and the prospects for a successful prosecution fairly quickly I’d have thought, and if there is prima facie then the investigation will continue).

I think he understands it pretty clearly because he's probably got a team of people paid for by the Republicans advising him.   They'll have a very good idea of how the senators will vote before the hearing starts.  So he knows it's not an actual interview, the Republicans will vote for him and teh Democrats against and there's one more Republican so unless he screws up terribly he wins.

Ranting about process and so on runs down the clock.  That's less time for hard questions and more control for him.  His primary audience with the ranting isn't the senators its the Trump voters watching on TV and Trump himself that he needs to keep on side.   They just want to see an angry right-wing judge who will vote against abortion and gun control.

 I'm not sure I share your optimism. The motivation for the FBI investigation is clearly political and the outcome, whatever it is, will be used to serve a political end. I'm quite sure that the individual investigators will try to do a thorough and impartial job within the constraints placed upon them, but that misses the point: the exercise is about the application of power to a situation of concern to a group of  which Kavanaugh is already a member. It's not about the diligent discovery of empirical facts.

I’m not particularly arguing against your point which is fair, but I’m hearted by the fact the FBI are involved, they’re a good bunch of people. 

I’ve been having a think about the case, there’s no physical evidence as it’s historical and it seems to me unless there is a witness that comes forward to support Fords version of events, or the FBI are able to unequivocally place Ford and Kavanaugh together at the same time (even then I think the case will be her word against his) not being completely au fait with US law I don’t know if this will be sufficient to lay charges for an historical abuse case (it wouldn’t be in Scotland I believe). However the good news is that Ford should be able to take a private prosecution which the standard of evidence is lower (think OJ Simpson). Would the senate approve the nomination in this case with such a trial pending, I don’t know but interesting to speculate.

Here you go!

https://twitter.com/i/status/1045718359713681408

(Not quite the original...)

The FBI could talk to/ interview the only other witness, he might change his story from his written account, or they  might offer Kavanaugh a polygraph. Dr Ford took a polygraph and passed I understand , albeit, it was solicited and paid for by her lawyers.

The best thing the FBI could do is offer them BOTH FBI controlled polygraph tests.

The tests would then at least  be consistent , and  equally calibrated rather than having to compare Dr Fords previous polygraph ( being , different , and arguably a compromised test. ) 

Sources of funding , of both sides,  are a matter of speculation .

I'm not sure either side would welcome close scrutiny, nor stand up to it. 

I would be interested to hear if Dr Ford is planning  to proceed with a private prosecution irrespective of the result of the FBI investigation of her accusation.

As she is ,100%, sure of her position, she should be pressing ahead with that private prosecution immediately . 

Yes, because taking on a (by that point presumably confirmed) Supreme Court judge in the courts, paid out of your own pocket, and played out in a  partisan media environment, is exactly what most people would sign up to without hesitation. 

Isnt it...?

Guilty or not, he is correct at least that there IS a political conspiracy against his appointment.  

Whether  he was wise  to make that point personally , or would have been better to leave it to others, will perhaps be a matter for reflection after its all over. 

Dr Ford took a detector test , but it was paid for by her own team, so the result is open to criticism by his team.

The FBI should therefore test them both with the same equipment and impartial operator. 

If either is them is not prepared to take that test, conclusions could be drawn from that. And of course if both take it , and both pass, we could be in very interesting territory 

Knowing that in the absence of any corroborating witness or evidence there is no prospect of a conviction, what would you do in her circumstances?

Why is that a political conspiracy against rather than a highly partisan party political opposition and support?

Because they had evidence that they could have revealed to the committee , and the FBI in plenty if time before the nomination vote, but they withheld that evidence. 

https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

If you can't be arsed to read the whole thing, you can get the gist from the first line:

"Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."

and the last..

"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."

Yep I think that’s the obvious way to go, having a quick google As I wasn’t sure if it was admissible it seems it is as long as it meets a set standard. You’d have thought this would have been done as soon as the allegations became public rather than having a senate confirmation hearing. I guess they work in different ways over there.

I’m afraid the US Department of Justice doesn’t agree with you - have a google it’s all there.

Can you give a link?

when I looked, I found this:

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-262-polygraphs-introduc...

tl:dr - government attorneys should seek to have polygraph evidence excluded because it is regarded as unreliable 

Sorry, my bad - I looked at some third party outfits flogging polygraphs who selectively quoted the justice department. Indeed polygraph looks like it is indeed inadmissible in general, although there are cases where it is admissible, although I don’t think the FBI will be pushing for it as they have challenged the reliability of polygraphs. Ironically enough it was the Supreme Court who ruled on it.

If they actually worked, it would make trials much easier... 

“did you do it?”

”no”

BZZZZZZZZZ

”guilty. Take him down. Next...!”

to be fair, they are not completely useless- just too vulnerable to being “beaten” by accomplished liars to be relied on.

"The FBI should therefore test them both with the same equipment and impartial operator. If either is them is not prepared to take that test, conclusions could be drawn from that."

We already know the answer to that. She's willing; he isn't.

jcm

I don't know why people keep coming out with this twaddle. Dr Ford gave her information to the Democrats in confidence. Of course they couldn't have taken it to the FBI or the committee - that would have been outrageous.

It's striking how Kavanaugh's defenders just have no regard for the obvious truth. It's like everything Trump touches; it's just lie after lie after lie.

I always like to think of myself as fairly cynical, but even I find myself surprised how Trump is able to sniff out and surround himself *exclusively* with liars, sex offenders, crooks, racists and bullies. I wouldn't have thought it was as easy to do as apparently it is.

jcm

Utter cock, on every level.

For one thing, why should she? She's given the people who are making this decision her information. Whether a private prosecution would help her heal or do her good is entirely a matter for her.

For another, the Senate is not considering whether to send Kavanaugh to prison. It's considering whether he's a good person to judge the affairs of the nation for life. If, for example, having considered the evidence, it was the opinion of most fair-minded observers that there was a 50% chance he was guilty of what Dr Ford says, it would be unthinkable to bring any sort of prosecution. It would also be unthinkable to appoint him. Instead one would go away and choose someone who *wasn't* quite possibly a rapist - that's really not a very high bar.

If, that is, one were an honourable and decent person. As that obviously doesn't include any Republican senators, it's a moot point, really.

jcm

You're saying that it's not much of a hit to have your testimony of an attempted rape, or a sexual assault which comes close to rape, pulled apart by people out to undermine you in the full glare of the world's media? 

The personal hit doesn't have anything to do with whether she likes the people....

Or a more personally important time? If I'd been treated like that by somebody, I wouldn't want them in a position to potentially be able to decide on matters related to sexual rights, sexual offences, or anything else which affects people's lives.

'Like attracts like' when it comes to people, they probably admire him and his similar (to listed) faults don't matter to them, and they seek to better themselves by being connected to him? People like that generally hide in plain sight too - their true nature comes out when they're in the right setting. I'm not cynical, it's the world which is.

You’re either working night shift or you need to get to bed earlier.

I don’t happen to think if someone levels a charge of rape in public and to the world, irrespective of the circumstances (senate confirmation hearing, at a police station, wherever), the accusation should be allowed to lie unchallenged, the FBI/police need to carry out an investigation to understand if there is actually a case with a real prospect of conviction. If Kavanaugh did do it, I’d like to see the judicial process call him to account (irrespective of his confirmation as a Supreme Court judge - they’re held to account the same as anyone else), if he didn’t do it then it’s an outrageous claim from Ford  and she should be held to account, either way the genie is out of the bottle and needs to be addressed. 

What happens if, after a week, the investigation doesn’t find sufficient grounds to allow a reasonable prospect of a conviction? 

It’s an on going investigation to a sexual assault, I’m not convinced the American president has the power to halt it, Kavanaugh can be confirmed but that doesn’t mean he can’t still be investigated for a serious indictable crime, in fact it would be remiss of the investigators not to continue. This should no longer be about confirmation or not, I think it’s moved on from that.- strike these comments.

Sorry didn’t read your reply properly - if there are insufficient grounds the investigation should be dropped, it happens all the time, doesn’t mean that Ford is culpable just that the investigation team don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. 

And in that case should his confirmation proceed? 

That’s for the senate committee to decide - Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court justice and accused sexual predator... trips off the tongue doesn’t it.

In a functional system, that would probably be ok; after all there must be many suitably qualified candidates who don’t have a cloud of ‘potential sexual predator’ hanging over them.  

But this appears to be a long way from being a functional political system. By whatever means necessary, and the ends justify the means, seem to be the ethical and moral framework the US now works within

Well it’s a system run by the pussy grabber in chief so we all have to draw our own conclusions on his attitude to an accused sexual predator and the influence he will wield in the senate. Given there are 6 female republican senators and more than a few decent men you’d have hoped a couple of them might be sufficiently robust to stand up and be counted, but I’m not holding my breath.

Agreed...!

I wouldn’t hold my breath either. It’s insanely partisan. And insanely indecent. 

So at four o’clock after a 50th birthday party you are able to:

a. See

b. Read

c. Type

d. Construct a sensible sentence 

You’re wasted here.

People can change.  as a teenager I murdered some birds with an air rifle because that was what people did.  My parents required me to put some unwanted kittens in a bucket which I did (because it was what they and all the people we knew said was what was wanted ("make sailors of them" was what one woman called it) with tears in my eyes and I still can see them struggling.  I can't harm anything now, except perhaps wasps as they seem to sting me on sight.

In my adult life I have a feeling of revulsion for what I did. Now I find I have lifted frogs caterpillars snails and beetles from the road to prevent them being run over, I felt disraught at the sight of Mrs Blackbird caught by the leg in netting put up by my wife to protect her fruit and spent a tricky few minutes trying to extricate her.   I don't even like the killing of slugs for gardening purposes.

while I admit that the only person who knows truly whether he or she has changed is the person in question, there is an element of "eternal damnation" of people who have not been born saints going on at the moment

Yes, what you say is true.

I think the trouble I have is his attitude now. The fact the this alleged assault was reported 6 years ago seems pretty damning. If he had said that he had had a bad attitude towards women as s young man but had changed his outlook and now regrets what he may have said or done then fine. Unfortunately instead he has decided to tell the world how unfair it is to him and he's a really nice guy actually.

That's true as well - I'm not excusing him, just expressing misgivings about hounding people for things that happened in a "previous life" as a youngster.   Having said that, it's not just about a potential attempted rape as whoever the perpetrator was there was some life threatening behaviour in trying to stifle the alleged victim's cries and struggles.  That makes the allegations rather more worrying as it might go considerably beyond "not knowing the rules".

Matt Damon just did a hilarious [to me] sendup of Kavanaugh at the hearings on Saturday Night Live. At least some of it is available on Youtube. I recommend watching it if you enjoy that kind of thing

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

Quote: "I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate. I cannot prove that he committed sexual assault when he was 17, and I hesitate to draw conclusions about what happened for a few minutes in a house in Maryland in the summer of 1982. But I can prove quite easily that Kavanaugh’s teary-eyed “good, innocent man indignant at being wrongfully accused” schtick was a facade. What may have looked like a strong defense was in fact a very, very weak and implausible one."

A long article but worth reading in full.

That has to be one of the most profoundly depressing articles I have ever read. 

Yes, I hope the FBI has read it.  Lots of easily checkable points that would completely undermine Kavanaugh's testimony if confirmed. 

Cheers Andy, the prospective Supreme Court judge is clearly partisan from his political ranting (when independance is required) and mendacious just from the analysis you linked (when honesty is required). This looks beyond partisan politics, more like abuse of the US system of an independent judiciary.  Lets see what the FBI come up with. I'm not concerned about the rush: if they say its all OK in the face of all the known facts let alone stuff not in public view they will get torn apart.

Some more interesting background:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/01/kavanaugh-clerk-hire-casts-...

Also worth reading the link to another article detailing his actual judicial record.

jcm

It shouldn’t be surprising really that Kavanaugh’s a liar. What the right want is someone who will rule for the right, every time. To do that, you need to be intellectually dishonest.

jcm

Presumably you mean this?

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/why-everyone-should-oppose-brett-kav...

Lies to the Senate and overt politically partisan statements on their own should really make such arguments irrelevant.

This Yale Law set smells like the US version of the Bullingdon club.   Cronyism, nepotism, alcoholism, sexism, sexual misconduct and connected to the point of being above the law.   It's dispiriting that the head of the FBI who is supposed to investigate Kavanaugh is from the same crowd.   At least the media seems to have its teeth into it now.

Thank you for that.  

I don't find it depressing.  I've known for a long time that certain powerful men have been brought up to do what they like and that includes treating women as objects.   I'm pleased that people are finally beginning to see through their lies.

He's about to be appointed to the Supreme f*cking Court - how can you be pleased about that?

I was referring to the article.  If he does get appointed after this then I'll be disappointed but frankly not surprised.  

I really don't think 

implies I'm pleased about the appointment. 

But people are seeing their lies - acknowledging their guilt - and saying it doesn't matter! I despair.

but not our Supreme Court.  Surely we accept that things are different in "The Land of the Free" and particularly under the new Emperor

Yes. Damning. 

And look, another glorious non sequitur: Q: Was the ralphing alcohol-related? A: I went to Yale.

Is this what America has come to?

It is true that that it's up to the USA what the USA wants to do.

However if this piece of sh*t ends up on their Supreme Court, then surely we have to question whether it's actually safe to allow any of our citizens to be extradited to the USA in the future.

(I've just spent a week at home with my back out, and ended up watching far more of this farce than I'd really like to have - there is no way that this guy is an educated reasonable jurist, and I don't care whichever posh school and college he attended.)

indeed I agree - but I was a bit surprised at people expressing as much concern about things we already know go on in the US as if the proceedings were happening in the UK, that's all.  It does matter in the scheme of things but I can't say I'm surprised by it or outraged as it seems par for the course there.

Something good may yet come out of this debacle.
It's been obvious for a very long time that the notion of the supreme court as an impartial umpire figuratively calling "Balls and Strikes" (what an f'king arsehole Roberts is) is complete and utter bullshit.
But, the Kavanagh nomination has really laid that lie to rest.

Without that impartiality, the supreme court really has no rational basis to justify its existence. 

What the actual f*ck has America come to when it’s president does this and people cheer?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/02/trump-mocks-christine-blase...

I've  just heard the Iranian foreign minister on R4 sounding like the the voice of rational, pragmatic  restraint.  The world is very odd just now.  He made the point that international treaties (should be) between countries, not people.  I think this is the fundamental shift.  Trump sees no distinction between himself, and power and the presidency.  The US has lost (temporarily??) the idea of a state and government being distinct from a person/strongman.

But as the USA quite rightly points out the revenue from oil means Iran is funding all sorts of difficult issues in the Middle East..... it is far more complicated than Trump bashing.

I know.

The only good will be if the Republican Party uses its authority and says no to Kavanaugh.The jury is out.

The good thing is that more and more women candidates are involved in the mid-term elections.

The supreme court has no need to justify it existence - it's enshrined in the constitution, it isn't going to disappear anytime soon. What is being undermined is it's role as being a check on the other two branches of government, hardly a cause of celebration  

Of course the third 'can't be proven either way' option is by far the most likely. Still, you're right allegations of serious criminality should be properly investigated and pursued to their conclusion.

Also there is presumable a statute of limitations applicable here, it may not be possible to prosecute him even if the evidence is compelling.

jk

Something the US could never be accused of in the middle east or elsewhere!

jk

I'd say its nadir but then much of America's past has been far from sweetness and light. Perhaps better: hopefully a point of inflexion.

Trump really is a dismal example of a homo sapiens.

jk

I did say it was complicated.

Painting the Iranians as paragons of virtue does nobody any favours.

Which might be related to why nobody does that and why a deal with a nuclear inspection regime was was negotiated.

You take that from what I wrote?

jk

This disgusting conduct by that asshole is so damaging. Here, displayed without shame, is exactly the privileged attitude that makes it so hard for sexual assault victims to step forward. And a bunch of other assholes (many of whom will be women) are actually cheering him. Some obnoxious jerk who did this in a pub would just be an obnoxious jerk. But this is the President talking, how damaging is that as an example and as a jackbooted stomp to confirm the 'status quo'. 'Know your place' he's saying.

F*cker.

When the supreme court makes decisions based on the political, preferences of its judges its not acting as a legitimate check on the other two branches. 

Unfortunately it now seems there are some gaps in Dr Fords recollections, for example where the attack took place, given the amount of time that has passed I’d be surprised if the FBI can put a proceedable case together, with the complainant unable to remember key elements. There was a discussion on Jeremy Vine with a psychiatrist discussing the selective memory victims (and witnesses) often have after traumatic events, so the gaps in Dr Fords recollection are predictable and understandable, but I don’t think they move the case along.

yes,  but its not about whether Kavanaugh  is guilty of sexual assault; its about whether a candidate for supreme court judge is a liar under oath. Andy Johnson's link on monday makes it pretty clear he is.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying