Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Tom Sawyer]

About That Letter From Women in Support of Brett Kavanaugh

That's a scary article. You can tell that it was written by a terrified rape victim who's afraid Kavanaugh will show up at her house and sexually assault her again if she doesn't publically proclaim that he's never molested her or any of her young children.

Meanwhile dozens of Policemen signed a statement attesting to the good character of Joseph DeAngelo.

"We saw these claims about him being the Golden State Killer and felt we need to let people know that we thought he was a good cop."

This should be known as the "Well, he didn't try to rape me so he couldn't have tried to rape anyone else because I know I would have been his first choice" fallacy.

Jokes aside, that article is a fairly solid rebuttal to the accusation that something is fishy about the 65 women signing a letter so quickly. Private schools have very good alumni relations organizations and there was likely already a lot of talk in that group about "Hey, that dude who used to hurl in my toilet is nominated to the Supreme Court now". It wouldn't take a set of GOP staffers all that long to get a bunch of them on the phone or have a call tree going to get people to come out and support their boy.

 

[repoman]

Honest question, if you could take all of men of Kavanaugh's age in high school when he is alleged to have done this act while "stumbling drunk", what percentage of them would be ethical and fairly caring adults at his current age?

How would that compare to general population of men?

I don't think he is very ethical, but I thought that before this allegation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile dozens of Policemen signed a statement attesting to the good character of Joseph DeAngelo.

"We saw these claims about him being the Golden State Killer and felt we need to let people know that we thought he was a good cop."

This should be known as the "Well, he didn't try to rape me so he couldn't have tried to rape anyone else because I know I would have been his first choice" fallacy.

Jokes aside, that article is a fairly solid rebuttal to the accusation that something is fishy about the 65 women signing a letter so quickly. Private schools have very good alumni relations organizations and there was likely already a lot of talk in that group about "Hey, that dude who used to hurl in my toilet is nominated to the Supreme Court now". It wouldn't take a set of GOP staffers all that long to get a bunch of them on the phone or have a call tree going to get people to come out and support their boy.

The Senate Judicial Chairman released the letter in a day (or less than). Alumni relations must be real good as none of those women went to his school.

 

[ZiprHead]

The woman's claim isn't driving my sense of what is true here... it is the GOP letter with signatures of 65 teenaged female buddies back in the day that does. The GOP had that in hand early on. Why would they do that?

It wasn't 65 of his buddies from high school or 65 people in general who know him. They specifically got signatures of women that knew (knew of?) Kavanaugh in high school. This indicates they were expecting a very specific claim against him to be made. Now why is that?

You're not the only one that thinks this is fishy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The Senate Judicial Chairman released the letter in a day (or less than). Alumni relations must be real good as none of those women went to his school.

Yes. They are from the associated girls' school. The one where the alumni committee has been in constant contact with their graduates for the past several decades to hit them up for money, coming to speak with current students, etc. A couple of calls to the alumni relations people to activate the already existing call tree wouldn't take more than an afternoon to contact a couple hundred people and get them forwarded to whomever is putting together the letter to support this judicial candidate whom they have all already been informed about through the regular weekly emails.

I went to a private school and I know how trivially easy that would be for one of our group. That's why the tone of the article was this lady going on about how fucking trivial getting all these signatures was.

 

[Elixir]

Honest question, if you could take all of men of Kavanaugh's age in high school when he is alleged to have done this act while "stumbling drunk", what percentage of them would be ethical and fairly caring adults at his current age?

How would that compare to general population of men?

I don't think he is very ethical, but I thought that before this allegation.

Yeh - my thought upon hearing about this kerfuffle was "he was a damn kid! - and in a different culture". But he screwed himself by not saying that himself right at the outset. Now, if the accuser has corroboration, he has made himself a liar - or to appear as one, depending on how credible the corroboration is.

 

[Jarhyn]

Meanwhile dozens of Policemen signed a statement attesting to the good character of Joseph DeAngelo.

"We saw these claims about him being the Golden State Killer and felt we need to let people know that we thought he was a good cop."

This should be known as the "Well, he didn't try to rape me so he couldn't have tried to rape anyone else because I know I would have been his first choice" fallacy.

You wrote incorrectly that the GOP had the letter in hand "early on." Obviously, the accusation and these women's recollection of Kavanaugh's reputation can both be true. But the letter is a credible riposte against the campaign to smear Kavanaugh.

Given that he purjored himself twice, and has huge unexplainable financial issues, he smeared himself already pretty well.

 

[Underseer]

Republicans: We need to ethnically cleanse all the Mexicans because they might be rapists.

Also Republicans: We need to elevate Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Irony is dead.

But straw man and false equivalence are alive and kicking.

How is anything I said a straw man?

Republicans are trying to get all Mexicans out of the country, even legal ones. This is clearly ethnic cleansing.

Republicans are trying to ram Kavanaugh through.

Nothing I said qualifies as a mischaracterization of the white supremacist conservative position.

What, after all those arguments you made about how great an ethnostate would be, now you're suddenly going to pretend that you never said those things?

 

[ZiprHead]

Meanwhile dozens of Policemen signed a statement attesting to the good character of Joseph DeAngelo.

"We saw these claims about him being the Golden State Killer and felt we need to let people know that we thought he was a good cop."

This should be known as the "Well, he didn't try to rape me so he couldn't have tried to rape anyone else because I know I would have been his first choice" fallacy.

You wrote incorrectly that the GOP had the letter in hand "early on." Obviously, the accusation and these women's recollection of Kavanaugh's reputation can both be true. But the letter is a credible riposte against the campaign to smear Kavanaugh.

Given that he purjored himself twice, and has huge unexplainable financial issues, he smeared himself already pretty well.

See this post for further details.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't like the fact that this scandal has sucked the air out of all the other problems that were swirling around Kavanaugh's nomination. It is a good thing that the Republican freight train driving his lightning-quick confirmation before the November elections has been temporarily derailed, because a Supreme Court nominee should be thoroughly vetted by both the White House and the Senate. However, the Republicans have so politicized the process that the only thing that could stop them is a sex scandal. Everybody has time for that, even though the alleged event took place over 35 years ago, when the woman was 15 and Kavanaugh 17.

See: California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

Christina Blasey Ford is a clinical psychologist and professor at Palo Alto now, but she apparently did not mention this memory to anyone until 2012, while undergoing therapy. That is what bothers me about this story, because people have been known to create false memories of traumatic incidents in their past. She may well remember an incident where she was assaulted by Kavanaugh (or someone else), but the details that are now clear in her mind may never have actually taken place. I'm not saying that this is the case here, only that it is a possibility.  False memory syndrome is controversial, but I personally know of one case where it happened to a person who had undergone so-called  recovered-memory therapy.

Ironically, this allegation could actually end up helping Kavanaugh to get confirmed. All of the controversy surrounding his lies to Congress and his wacko opinions about presidential powers has been submerged by this scandal, which hangs on the uncorroborated memory of one woman. She is about to undergo one of the most intensive attacks on her character that anyone has ever faced. Not even Anita Hill faced the social media megacircus that Twitter and Facebook have helped to create in today's political climate. Dr. Ford was reluctant to come forward precisely because she feared such a media storm, and she will almost certainly face scathing questions in the Senate confirmation room. Kavanaugh will become the victim, and she will be either the feminist shrew trying to persecute him with a false story or the brave martyr of the #metoo movement. Whatever happens, nothing else will matter. The Roe v Wade heat is no longer so hot for Collins and Murkowski. There will be some vulnerable Democratic senators up for reelection who will be sorely tempted to support Kavanaugh in order to show how fair-minded they are. All that needs to happen is that this one woman is turned into a mass of quaking jelly in the public eye.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Ironically, this allegation could actually end up helping Kavanaugh to get confirmed. All of the controversy surrounding his lies to Congress and his wacko opinions about presidential powers has been submerged by this scandal, which hangs on the uncorroborated memory of one woman. ...

All of that controversy was to no effect. There was no doubt he would be confirmed. However it came about, this latest scandal is all the Dems have left. It's pure politics. There will be nothing honorable in what is about to happen. But that's the way the Republicans have been running things from the beginning.

 

[Elixir]

Kavanaugh will become the victim, and she will be either the feminist shrew trying to persecute him with a false story or the brave martyr of the #metoo movement. Whatever happens, nothing else will matter.

Nothing else will matter - to whom? Assuming that whatever hearings transpire are public or will become so, I'm sure that all of the Rethuglican Senators who would like nothing more than to tear Ms. Ford to shreds, will be given pause by the optics of a room full of old white men vilifying a female alleged victim. Some may even calculate that Trumpettes within their districts will send them down in flames at the polls if they make the wrong move here.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that this is the very least of many good reasons that this "proven liar" guy doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. It is shameful that lurid interest seems to consistently trump rationality, even if it's just sexual innuendo vs. proven damning facts. Tom Sawyer has a lot of not-so-nice things to say about an electorate with those kinds of programmed responses, and it's hard to deny. I'm not sure that Canuckians are really any less susceptible to that kind of thing, but I suspect they encounter it less often... they did have a scandal named Ford themselves. But he's dead now, setting an excellent example for our own Cheato.

 

[Copernicus]

Kavanaugh will become the victim, and she will be either the feminist shrew trying to persecute him with a false story or the brave martyr of the #metoo movement. Whatever happens, nothing else will matter.

Nothing else will matter - to whom? Assuming that whatever hearings transpire are public or will become so, I'm sure that all of the Rethuglican Senators who would like nothing more than to tear Ms. Ford to shreds, will be given pause by the optics of a room full of old white men vilifying a female alleged victim. Some may even calculate that Trumpettes within their districts will send them down in flames at the polls if they make the wrong move here.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that this is the very least of many good reasons that this "proven liar" guy doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. It is shameful that lurid interest seems to consistently trump rationality, even if it's just sexual innuendo vs. proven damning facts. Tom Sawyer has a lot of not-so-nice things to say about an electorate with those kinds of programmed responses, and it's hard to deny. I'm not sure that Canuckians are really any less susceptible to that kind of thing, but I suspect they encounter it less often... they did have a scandal named Ford themselves. But he's dead now, setting an excellent example for our own Cheato.

Actually, Ford's brother has managed to resurrect the scandal machine in Canada.

I do think it's possible that this scandal will derail the nomination, but I also see a scenario where Dr. Ford is made to look confused and unsure of her allegation under public questioning in the Senate. Worse yet, what if she recanted? At that point, Kavanaugh becomes the victim of a last minute smear campaign by Democrats. The opposition to him will have been thoroughly discredited as purely partisan obstructionism--something that the Republicans have very hypocritically been trying to do anyway. Before this scandal broke, Murkowski and Collins were wavering a bit under all the pressure. They might be put in a position where it becomes much more difficult to oppose the nomination.

 

[Elixir]

Kavanaugh will become the victim, and she will be either the feminist shrew trying to persecute him with a false story or the brave martyr of the #metoo movement. Whatever happens, nothing else will matter.

Nothing else will matter - to whom? Assuming that whatever hearings transpire are public or will become so, I'm sure that all of the Rethuglican Senators who would like nothing more than to tear Ms. Ford to shreds, will be given pause by the optics of a room full of old white men vilifying a female alleged victim. Some may even calculate that Trumpettes within their districts will send them down in flames at the polls if they make the wrong move here.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that this is the very least of many good reasons that this "proven liar" guy doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. It is shameful that lurid interest seems to consistently trump rationality, even if it's just sexual innuendo vs. proven damning facts. Tom Sawyer has a lot of not-so-nice things to say about an electorate with those kinds of programmed responses, and it's hard to deny. I'm not sure that Canuckians are really any less susceptible to that kind of thing, but I suspect they encounter it less often... they did have a scandal named Ford themselves. But he's dead now, setting an excellent example for our own Cheato.

Actually, Ford's brother has managed to resurrect the scandal machine in Canada.

I do think it's possible that this scandal will derail the nomination, but I also see a scenario where Dr. Ford is made to look confused and unsure of her allegation under public questioning in the Senate. Worse yet, what if she recanted? At that point, Kavanaugh becomes the victim of a last minute smear campaign by Democrats. The opposition to him will have been thoroughly discredited as purely partisan obstructionism--something that the Republicans have very hypocritically been trying to do anyway. Before this scandal broke, Murkowski and Collins were wavering a bit under all the pressure. They might be put in a position where it becomes much more difficult to oppose the nomination.

I agree - the risk/benefit ratio is lopsided (I don't think this "scandal" alone will derail anything). And it's terrible that now everyone seems to have forgotten that Kavanaugh is a self-dealing liar. It should be easy for anyone with a conscience and an interest in the welfare of The Union to vote no on his confirmation, no sex scandal required. This guy was all impeach-o-matic when Clinton was in the barrel. Now that it's Cheato, he's a complete brown-nosing brownshirt.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm one of those people who can't help thinking "Looks good, but what could possibly go wrong?" I am especially this way after the 2016 election, in which so many Democrats and Republicans all operated under the assumption that Clinton was a slam-dunk win for the Democrats.

The other go-wrong scenario has already been discussed earlier in the thread--that a lame duck Senate after the election could approve a delayed Kavanaugh nomination, even if he looks a little cooked before the election. Kavanaugh, Trump, and a lot of Republicans badly want this nomination to go through, and Republican senators leaving Congress before the next session would have little to lose by confirming him. Even some of the more conservative-leaning Democrats might join the Republicans to replace a couple of defecting Republicans. If the Democrats retake control of the Senate, Republicans would see this nomination as their last chance to pack the Court before Democrats block all Trump nominations. Kavanaugh is not likely to withdraw. He has his lifetime appointment as a federal judge anyway, so he will maintain his innocence and even enhance his reputation among Republicans as the man who was unfairly "borked". Democrats will always have the Merrick Garland card to play, and Republicans will always have Kavanaugh as their "trump" card.

 

[JohnG]

I'm not sure that Canuckians are really any less susceptible to that kind of thing, but I suspect they encounter it less often... they did have a scandal named Ford themselves. But he's dead now, setting an excellent example for our own Cheato.

Canada is not that much different I think - if anything, the ratio between urban voters to rural voters are higher, and that likely has an effect.

Ontario recently elected a Trumpian premier with a relatively low voter turnout. He is currently attempting to cut urban representation way down. The court ruled this action unconstitutional. He is attempting to bypass the court.

There is also a new right wing party forming (not sure if they will gain any traction)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile dozens of Policemen signed a statement attesting to the good character of Joseph DeAngelo.

"We saw these claims about him being the Golden State Killer and felt we need to let people know that we thought he was a good cop."

This should be known as the "Well, he didn't try to rape me so he couldn't have tried to rape anyone else because I know I would have been his first choice" fallacy.

You wrote incorrectly that the GOP had the letter in hand "early on."

I could be wrong.

Obviously, the accusation and these women's recollection of Kavanaugh's reputation can both be true.

I never disputed their claims on him.

But the letter is a credible riposte against the campaign to smear Kavanaugh.

So, letter saying he is great is "great riposte" and claim that he did something wrong is "smear". We report, you decide.

 

[blastula]

Kavanaugh is a proven liar, and she's not, so she's ahead on that already.

But she is a Democratic donor and has also opposed Trump's border policy. \

Timing is also highly suspect.

You mean the huge $35 donation she gave one year? I don't recall you counting it in their favor that Roy Moore's accusers were Republicans. She's not a partisan hack. You're the hack.

She never shared the name of the person who allegedly attacked her,

So? You mean she could have been referring to some other "high-ranking member of society in Washington." She purposely made up the attack and planned it so that a therapist would take these notes so she could have it in her back pocket anytime she wanted to take down somebody in Washington (from her neighborhood), and enjoy the great fun time experience it will be to go public like this?

You're a hack.

there is a discrepancy in the number of people in the room between therapist's notes and her claims,

So? She explained it. You think therapists are stenographers?

and polygraphs are pretty much junk science.

Yes, it's unreliable, but if she knew that, why would she do it?

And the friend has even written about his drunken escapades from high school, lending even more credence to her account.

How so? Getting drunk != having a friend who assaulted a girl at a party.

She said they were drunk. It seems they were hard drinkers.

Kavanaugh did it,

You have no way of knowing that. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Pretty much impossible to ascertain the veracity of her claims, especially since her recollection is spotty - i.e. she doesn't remember when or where the alleged attack occurred. If she can't remember the where and when, why are you so certain she remembers the who perfectly?

I'm certain she believes it. It could be a false memory, but I doubt it.

and now he's lying again. Not that it will matter. He should be bounced for all the lying, at the least.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Kavanaugh. But if he goes down because of this politics of personal destruction, that would merely encourage more of the same, which would be a shame. Who would want to toss their hat in the ring if you have to endure allegations such as these?

Republicans will confirm him unless she is very, very convincing, beyond even their corrupt ability to deny it; or if there are other witnesses who back her up, or maybe other women come forward. Kavanaugh only would be to blame if he gets withdrawn.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does anyone else think that all this talk about him being just a boy is hypocritical.

Remember Trayvon Martin who was 17...oh he's not a child. Or worse,

Some conservatives — though not just conservatives — insist that it is unfair to judge a middle-aged man for things he did as a kid. On Fox News, the former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer pondered the weight of high school misbehavior. “Should that deny us chances later in life?” he asked. “Even for Supreme Court job, a presidency of the United States, or you name it?”

Such arguments would be more convincing if people on the right weren’t so selective in their indulgence. Donald Trump called for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, who were 14 to 16 years old when they were arrested. (They’ve since been proven innocent.) Children are regularly put on sex offender registries, sometimes for their entire lives, for conduct less serious than what Kavanaugh is accused of. In a sour irony, some legal experts think Kavanaugh’s confirmation could imperil Miller v. Alabama, a 2012 decision banning life sentences without parole for most teenage convicts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/...rett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-republicans.html

I actually agree with the point that he was just 17 and this was 35 years ago. What I think matters is how he has grown as a person since then. Has he? However, what I see is inconsistency from some people in this thread and conservatives as it applies to previous issues.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Does anyone else think that all this talk about him being just a boy is hypocritical.

Remember Trayvon Martin who was 17...oh he's not a child. Or worse,

Some conservatives — though not just conservatives — insist that it is unfair to judge a middle-aged man for things he did as a kid. On Fox News, the former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer pondered the weight of high school misbehavior. “Should that deny us chances later in life?” he asked. “Even for Supreme Court job, a presidency of the United States, or you name it?”

Such arguments would be more convincing if people on the right weren’t so selective in their indulgence. Donald Trump called for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, who were 14 to 16 years old when they were arrested. (They’ve since been proven innocent.) Children are regularly put on sex offender registries, sometimes for their entire lives, for conduct less serious than what Kavanaugh is accused of. In a sour irony, some legal experts think Kavanaugh’s confirmation could imperil Miller v. Alabama, a 2012 decision banning life sentences without parole for most teenage convicts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/...rett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-republicans.html

I actually agree with the point that he was just 17 and this was 35 years ago. What I think matters is how he has grown as a person since then. Has he? However, what I see is inconsistency from some people in this thread and conservatives as it applies to previous issues.

Kavenaugh denied (or tried to deny) abortion services to a 17 year old immigrant. Clearly, he thinks that decisions and actions done when one is 17 should have lifelong consequences. That should be applied to him as well.