The Kavanaugh controversy

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Apparently only Kavanaugh and Ford would be allowed to testify at Monday's hearing so I'm not sure how it would clear anything up. I'm also not sure if the FBI has any jurisdiction. Attempted rape isn't a federal crime. Shouldn't it be a matter for local law enforcement?

No, it is not a mater for local law enforcement because there is no crime to be investigated, since the statute of limitations has long since expired. However, it good be a matter for the FBI in their role of performing backround checks for federal positions, particularly a lifetime position on the highest court in the land.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is the letter that Dr. Ford's attorneys sent to Sen. Grassley:

By Electronic Mail

September 18, 2018

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Grassley:

Thank you for reaching out yesterday afternoon. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford looks forward to working with you and the Committee.

As you know, earlier this summer, Dr. Ford sought to tell her story, in confidence, so that lawmakers would have a fuller understanding of Brett Kavanaugh's character and history. Only after the details of her experience were leaked did Dr. Ford make the reluctant decision to come forward publicly.

In the 36 hours since her name became public, Dr. Ford has received a stunning amount of support from her community and from fellow citizens across our country. At the same time, however, her worst fears have materialized. She has been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats. As a result of these kind of threats, her family was forced to relocate out of their home. Her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online.

While Dr. Ford's life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident. The hearing was scheduled for six short days from today and would include interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is "mistaken" and "mixed up." While no sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal, Dr. Ford wants to cooperate with the Committee and with law enforcement officials.

As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations. A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions.

We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security.

Sincerely,
Debra S. Katz
Lisa J. Banks

Attorneys for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

[Cerin]

I think there are two questions here that many commentators are conflating:
1) Should Brett Kavanaugh be prosecuted and (if convicted) thrown in jail over this?
2) Should Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination be derailed over this?

The problem is that many are using objections to question #1 to answer "no" to question #2 as well. When you're talking about depriving someone of a fundamental right such as liberty, the burden of proof is on the accuser, the standard of proof is very high, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. But when you're talking about granting someone a privilege, especially a privilege as high as a lifelong position on the nation's highest court, the burden is on the candidate to show he deserves it. If Ford's testimony succeeds in creating doubt about Kavanaugh's character, I think the senators would be well within their rights to withdraw their support, even if no prosecutor would touch the case with a ten-foot pole.

It's the job of the Senate to determine if the nominee is qualified, and the nominee assists that process through his/her testimony. Perhaps that's what you meant by, 'the burden is on the candidate to show he deserves it.' But a single, uncorroborated accusation is not something the nominee can disprove, and therefore, it should not be enough to derail a nomination; I don't know that it's enough to trigger an FBI investigation, either. I would think there would be a threshold of evidence required for that, and here there is none.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

For comparison's sake, here is the timeline of the Anita Hill allegations against now Justice Thomas:

• Clarence Thomas underwent his initial hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early September 1991.
• Anita Hill says she spoke with the Judiciary Committee in "early September," and that an FBI investigation was suggested to her on Sept. 20, 1991.
• On Sept. 23, 1991, allegations of harassment were brought to the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which immediately informed the White House, according to a statement from then-deputy press secretary Judy Smith.
• Upon learning of the allegations, the White House "promptly directed the FBI to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation," according to the statement.
• Three days later, on Sept. 26, 1991, the FBI completed its investigation, and a report was submitted to the White House and the Judiciary Committee. The White House deemed the allegations "unfounded."
• On Oct. 6, 1991, Nina Totenberg of NPR obtained a copy of the FBI report and reported on the allegations, the first time the public became aware of the story.
• On Oct. 11, 1991, Hill begins her testimony during Thomas' Senate confirmation hearing.

So the idea of the FBI investigating these kinds of allegations after the initial Judiciary Committee hearing on a nominee is not at all unprecedented.

[Cerin]

So the 'full, thorough and expeditious investigation' of the Hill allegations took three whole days?

[Dave_LF]

But a single, uncorroborated accusation is not something the nominee can disprove, and therefore, it should not be enough to derail a nomination

Maybe, maybe not; it's all in the details. The senators certainly can and should question him over it, and if they're not satisfied with his answers, they are entitled to turn him down, even if their reasons for being dissatisfied aren't the sorts of things that would hold up in a criminal court.

[Sunsilver]

Here's what David Brock has to say about Brett Kavanaugh. If it's true, this man is a disaster looking for a place to happen, but exactly the sort of person Trump would want for the vacant seat!

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i ... id=related

You really need to read the whole article to get the story, but Brock's conclusion is this:

But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights. But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us.

[Cerin]

But a single, uncorroborated accusation is not something the nominee can disprove, and therefore, it should not be enough to derail a nomination

Maybe, maybe not; it's all in the details. The senators certainly can and should question him over it, and if they're not satisfied with his answers, they are entitled to turn him down, even if their reasons for being dissatisfied aren't the sorts of things that would hold up in a criminal court.

Agreed.

[elengil]

There is at least one person who came forward to corroborate hearing of the incident at the time, which to my mind makes it far more likely to be true as the accusation did not come out of nowhere, it has history dating back to the event itself. It's unfortunate that the treatment people get for coming forward (whether it's negative or just too overwhelming) silences far too many.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... nt-n911111

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are several pieces of circumstantial evidence that help corroborate Dr. Ford's story, none of which are remotely determinative. In addition to Ms. King-Miranda's rather vague assertion that she heard something, there are the writings of Mark Judge (the other one who Dr. Ford claims participated in the assault) that talk about "swimming in alcohol" during his years at Georgetown prep, and also about lusting after the girls in local Catholic high schools, like the one that Dr. Ford attended. While he doesn't name Judge Kavanaugh directly he does refer to a "Bart O'Kauvanaugh" getting drunk and throwing up in a car. And Judge Kavanaugh himself in a 2015 speech made a joke about "what happened at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep" so it seems pretty clear that he knows that he did some things there that he would not want people to know about, whether it is just getting drunk and raising hell, or involved a sexual assault like the one that Dr. Ford alleges.

All of this is why an investigation really would be helpful. But what I'm not sure people understand is that the only person who can make that happen is Mr. Trump. Sen. Grassley can't request that the FBI do a further background check, the request has to come from the president himself. And there is no way that is going to happen. So eventually Dr. Ford and her attorneys are going to have to decide whether she should go ahead and testify in this limited two-person hearing or not. I honestly don't know what I would advise her if I were her attorney. Neither option is a good one.

[Cerin]

People claiming knowledge of the incident should refrain from commenting publicly if they aren't willing to stand behind their comments, imo. There's one thing I'm not clear on: River and Prim have alluded to Kavanaugh denying his attendance at this party under oath. At what point was he questioned on the matter?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't believe he has specifically denied anything having to do with this specific allegation under oath, as of yet. I meant to note that as well. While I would like to see him testify about it (and particularly to have him explain his "what happened at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep comment") I really chafe at the idea of limiting the hearing to the testimony of two people, as the GOP senators have insisted on. The renewed hearing for Justice Thomas' nomination after Anita Hill made her allegations consisted of the testimony of over 20 people, and there was still criticism that they didn't call other witnesses. I don't think that many people would need to testify to have a fair hearing but they certainly should allow other witnesses, and perhaps subpoena Mr. Judge to make him state his denial under oath, and also clarify whether the "Bart O'Kavanaugh" referred to his memoir was really Judge Kavanaugh. Other witnesses potentially would those they should told about the assault before the nomination, and potentially an expert witness about the affects of sexual assault.

[Cerin]

To what extent does the Senate have subpoena power over people who have stated they don't want to be involved (both Judge and King so far to my knowledge)? Besides those two, what other people are there with first hand knowledge whose testimony would shed light? I don't see the need myself, for testimony on sexual assault or for people to simply repeat the facts that haven't been contested (such as Ford's husband and psychologist reiterating that she mentioned the incident).

edit

River or Prim, could you clarify what you were referring to about Kavanaugh denying under oath that he did not attend this party?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Senate can subpoena anyone who has relevant information, but generally it is the chairman of the committee that makes those decisions, and I don't think there is much chance that Sen. Grassley will do so. The only way that witnesses can refuse to answer would be to plead the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

I believe that the only testimony that Kavanaugh has made under oath about sexual assault or harassment was the following:

[Sen Mazie]HIRONO [of Hawaii]: Judge Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts has recognized that, quote, “The judicial branch is not immune,” end quote, from the widespread problem of sexual harassment and assault and has taken steps to address this issue.
As part of my responsibility, as a member of this committee, to ensure the fitness of nominees for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, I ask each nominee two questions.
First question for you, since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
KAVANAUGH: No.
HIRONO: Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
KAVANAUGH: No.

Since she made the caveat "as a legal adult" technically his denial would not cover this allegation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Dr. Ford's attorneys have responded to Sen. Grassley. From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — The woman who has accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault, in an apparent bid to jump-start negotiations, has told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she “would be prepared to testify next week,” so long as senators offer “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety,” according to an email her lawyers sent to committee staff members.

In the email, obtained by The New York Times, the lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford said that testifying Monday — the timetable Republicans have set for a hearing — “is not possible and the Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event.” The lawyer reiterated that it is Dr. Blasey’s “strong preference” that “a full investigation” occur before her testimony — wording that stopped short of demanding an F.B.I. probe and suggested she is open to testifying without one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/us/p ... lasey.html

Will Sen. Grassley really still insist that it is Monday or nothing?

[Cerin]

Why isn't it possible on Monday? I imagine he might insist on Monday unless Ford can provide a good reason why Monday isn't possible. The Democrats want to stall and the Republicans want to move along.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Given that her and her family's lives have been turned completely upside down, they have been forced to move out of their house, have faced death threats, and there still has not been an agreement on what the actual format of the hearing would be, I don't think asking for a few more days is unreasonable, particularly given that there is absolutely no compelling reason that it be on Monday rather than a day later in the week.

[yovargas]

Capture.JPG (35.25 KiB) Viewed 5163 times

Regardless of my thoughts about this whole thing in general, this kind of thinking is appalling.

[Cerin]

Do you mean, appalling that he has no further questions? They've had extensive testimony already, so this seems reasonable to me. I don't know what more can be asked about the assault beyond, 'Did you do it?' and Kavanaugh has answered that. Is it customary that each and every Senator ask questions?

[Dave_LF]

Wow