Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

That is a matter of judgement and sometimes the accusation is by someone who don't want to hear the opinion of people they don't agree with. That is evident in spades in this thread.

Perhaps to some degree, but it's not because we don't want to hear it.  It's because we've heard it and it's been judged not only by people willing to have serious discussion here but every expert in the field to be at odds with all the data and facts about these situations, so we've moved on.  We're not continuing to re-debate such lightweight arguments.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That’s one element I take into account. I’ve already mentioned how Feinstein sat on it, and ties both accusers have with Dems. You don’t like my position. It’s quite simple 

And it's an element that was throughly debated and debunked.  Waiting to speak up is completely normal and has no bearing on the truthfulness of an accusation.  So we've moved on.

We agreed with you on Feinstein's handling of it, so there's no debate there.

You mentioned ties to Dems but didn't really detail it beyond the little we know such as some small contributions to Democratic candidates over the years by Ford.  Did you have something more to add on that?

So no, it's not about not liking your position, it's your piss-poor, unserious manner of putting it forth.  Do better.

[WDavE 332]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Stop weaseling. You misrepresented her testimony, period.  Go back and look.  She never said "it didn't happen".

No, but everyone else involve has!

[homersapien 11,393]

3 minutes ago, WDavE said:

No, but everyone else involve has!

Such as?

[TexasTiger 12,963]

33 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Democrats will do everything to stop Trump from appointing another justice. You know it.

He will appoint one soon if the Rs are smart about it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

He will appoint one soon if the Rs are smart about it.

I disagree, if Rs lose in November 

[homersapien 11,393]

Republicans reportedly knew about Brett Kavanaugh’s second accuser — and then tried to speed up his confirmation

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17895622/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-grassley-new-yorker

The New Yorker on Sunday published a story on a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Beyond the contents of the allegations themselves, there is another explosive layer that reflects more broadly on the Republican Party: Senior GOP staffers knew about Ramirez’s allegation last week, and instead of taking a pause to investigate, they appeared to try to speed up the confirmation process.

Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker reported that the offices of at least four Democratic senators received information about Ramirez’s allegation and at least two were investigating. Republicans knew about it too:

Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

It appears as though the thinking among some members of the GOP wasn’t that Ramirez’s story is disturbing and warrants a probe — it was that it looks bad, so better to get to a vote quickly before it comes out........

[TexasTiger 12,963]

40 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I disagree, if Rs lose in November 

Put forward one now.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

43 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I disagree, if Rs lose in November 

That's why some are saying the smart play would be to go ahead and withdraw Kavanaugh's name now.  Raise hell and blame it on the Dems and say he wasn't going to get a fair hearing if you want.  Then put forward a more conservative candidate that you know doesn't have that baggage.  If it were me, I'd choose a woman like Barrett but she's not the only option.  Don't risk dragging this out too close or past the midterms.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's why some are saying the smart play would be to go ahead and withdraw Kavanaugh's name now.  Raise hell and blame it on the Dems and say he wasn't going to get a fair hearing if you want.  Then put forward a more conservative candidate that you know doesn't have that baggage.  If it were me, I'd choose a woman like Barrett but she's not the only option.  Don't risk dragging this out too close or past the midterms.

Is Barrett the New Orleans girl?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Put forward one now.

From what I’ve gathered, it’s not that simple - though reasonable minds could wholeheartedly disagree.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Is Barrett the New Orleans girl?

Yes.  

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

From what I’ve gathered, it’s not that simple - though reasonable minds could wholeheartedly disagree.

Sure it's that simple.  You withdraw his name and within 24 hours you name a new nominee.  Schedule the hearings for next week and vote.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes.  

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/

IMO, her devout Catholicism would not be tolerated by opposition, unfortunately.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

You're not making any sense.  Regardless of when the FBI investigates, if anyone in this hearing intentionally testifies under oath something that is found to be false, they are subject to perjury charges.  It is not dependent upon whether they investigate before or after.

I disagree. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is unless a person commits perjury in a federal court or federal hearing it is not a federal crime but under the local jurisdiction/ jury. The FBI is saying they don't investigate something that isn't a federal crime. Thus my suggestion they do it after the hearing since any perjury would be in a federal jurisdiction.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Sure it's that simple.  You withdraw his name and within 24 hours you name a new nominee.  Schedule the hearings for next week and vote.  

No I mean I would agree, don’t get me wrong. I’ve just heard conflicting opinions on that.

What precedent might it set out? Might it incentivize unsubstantiated or frivolous claims against public nominees?

[TexasTiger 12,963]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Sure it's that simple.  You withdraw his name and within 24 hours you name a new nominee.  Schedule the hearings for next week and vote.  

Put forward a candidate with a less voluminous paper trail.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

I disagree. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is unless a person commits perjury in a federal court or federal hearing it is not a federal crime but under the local jurisdiction/ jury. The FBI is saying they don't investigate something that isn't a federal crime. Thus my suggestion they do it after the hearing since any perjury would be in a federal jurisdiction.

They perform background checks.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

I disagree. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is unless a person commits perjury in a federal court or federal hearing it is not a federal crime but under the local jurisdiction/ jury. The FBI is saying they don't investigate something that isn't a federal crime. Thus my suggestion they do it after the hearing since any perjury would be in a federal jurisdiction.

If you are testifying under oath before Congress, then it falls under federal jurisdiction.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/what-happens-if-you-lie-to-congress.html

[TexasTiger 12,963]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

IMO, her devout Catholicism would not be tolerated by opposition, unfortunately.

That would put the Dems in a challenging place.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Sure it's that simple.  You withdraw his name and within 24 hours you name a new nominee.  Schedule the hearings for next week and vote.  

Surely you don't think that is realistic. The Dems would find ways to delay it on and on, complaining they didn't have time to  talk or check out the person.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

They perform background checks.

Sure. But usually not crimes unless it's breaking a federal law. They have done background checks on me for security clearances but not for me breaking any laws.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

That would put the Dems in a challenging place.

See my edit to Titan also. If BK is pulled, do we risk an unhealthy precedent? Incentive unsubstantiated and/or frivolous claims?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No I mean I would agree, don’t get me wrong. I’ve just heard conflicting opinions on that.

It's happened before.  Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg after Robert Bork was voted down by the Senate.  His use of marijuana and a couple of other things raised concerns for some senators and on November 7, 1987, he was withdrawn.  Four days later, Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Reagan.

George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers and after opposition from both sides of the aisle, her name was withdrawn on October 27, 2005.  Four days later on October 31st, Bush nominated Samuel Alito.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Surely you don't think that is realistic. The Dems would find ways to delay it on and on, complaining they didn't have time to  talk or check out the person.

If you stick with one of the people on the short list:  Barrett, Kethledge or Hardiman, you'll blunt that charge.  So, yes, it's realistic to withdraw Kavanaugh now, name a new nominee in short order, and move forward.