Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Dr Ford overcame significant personal fears and came forward in order to perform her Civic duty by making her allegation BEFORE Kavanaugh was selected as the Trump nomination to the Court.

She did that by approaching her Member of Congress in the first instance, as soon as she began to feel that Kav was being considered for nomination to a position on the USSC. Because of her belief that Kav had attacked her as part of a drunken sexual assault that involved another boy as well, when she was just 15, she did not believe that he was fit to serve on that Court for his lifetime.

She would have been fully entitled to assume that, in a properly working system, with which she was not particularly familiar, the political and legal mechanisms would have dealt with her allegations with sufficient seriousness and haste, given their gravity. What happened from there onwards is in no way a reflection on Dr Ford. Many others will, rightly or wrongly, be accused of various errors of commission and omission, as well as outright naked politicking and manipulation. If 'the system' had dealt with her allegation properly, it might never have become the 'free-for-all' that subsequently happened. Her desire for confidentiality could have been honoured by discrete FBI investigation as part of Kav's background check.

Because of all this, Dr Ford has been spectacularly failed by 'the system' and an already dark episode in her early life has been publicly exposed in a way that will re-inforce the original trauma. Whatever is now said, and whomever is judged to be responsible for any failing in this process, Dr Ford is the only one who has come out of that process with dignity and honour. Continued attacks on her are reprehensible, and ought to be called out in the strongest terms.

So 2scoops, you have no actual evidence against HC. You have lots of probables, plenty of possibles and lots of maybes, but actual proof.

Why are you holding different people to different standards. Only this week NYT presented a pretty damning expose of Trump avoiding taxes. Yet hardly a peep out of you.

There is lots of accusations that the FBI were working for HC, yet here we have an FBI investigation controlled by the WH and you have expressed no concerns .

Trump made plenty of unsubstantiated claims about Obama and HC yet you don't seem to hold him to the same standards as Dr Ford.

Its almost as if you have created separate standards to hold people so that you can convince yourself you are being open minded.

At least admit it that based on your current stance on Kavanaugh, you were wrong to prejudge HC. And that you, Trump, and the entire right wing media owe her an apology for your belatedly arrival at your current position on evidence.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, the investigation isn't up to the best standards of what the FBI normally conduct. But the circumstances in which the FBI usually conduct such investigations is in the criminal context.

This is not a criminal context. And, at the end of the day, no criminal complaint has EVER been made. This is a political arena, like it or not. dr ford chose to enter this arena. She could have made a criminal complaint; she didn't. That option is still open to her, and if that claim is proven, the case for impeachment is undeniable.

What the FBI have done, certainly in respect of the ford allegations, is speak to those who could have corrroborative evidence, and it appears no such corroboration exists.

In a practical context, any FBI Investigation that would match what they would do in the criminal context would take months; that simply is not either practically or politically possible. The political reality is that if an allegation first raised on the eve of a sensitive political appointment can be allowed to delay such an appointment for months by a so far uncorrobrated allegation, the system would completely break down. And that applies whatever side of the aisle you are on. Be careful what you wish for.

Great post. Allegations of rape should be made to the police, not to senators.

drkpower wrote: »

relax carry on wrote: »

So if he is confirmed what do you think as an individual, not as a Trump supporter/Republican, of his fitness for the position given his performance during the hearing? Considering the responsibility and power of the position do you have faith in his ability to carry out the role effectively?

Apologies for answering a question nor directed at me.

That said, as a democrat supporter (insofar as any of us can say we are not living in the US) and as someone's who thinks that kavanaugh, from a political perspective, will be bad bad news on the SC, I think he needs to be confirmed.

I thought his performance in the hearings was mixed to say the least; the allegations of political bias, while 100% accurate in my view, were inappropriate for him to raise and his demeanour at times was inappropriate. However, he has been subjected to allegations of sexual assault, rape, media slaughter, and more in the past few weeks. Despite not wanting him on the SC at all, I can understand why his performance was not what it should be.

People need to separate their politics from the substance.

Ford has had her entire life ripped apart with death threats recently and remained calm.

I feel like this is a serious case of low standards here.

Lying to the senate alone should have sunk him. I mean it goes against the Republican philosophy these days to ever admit a mistake in spite of hoards of them so he will get on.

Still his ability to keep his calm is largely irrelevant to Republicans. There is plenty of charged topics for him to rule on.

Christy42 wrote: »

Ford has had her entire life ripped apart with death threats recently and remained calm.

I feel like this is a serious case of low standards here.

Lying to the senate alone should have sunk him. I mean it goes against the Republican philosophy these days to ever admit a mistake in spite of hoards of them so he will get on.

Still his ability to keep his calm is largely irrelevant to Republicans. There is plenty of charged topics for him to rule on.

Whether ford or kavanaugh was a better witness is not the issue here. Ford was clearly a better witness. But she isn't the nominee for the SC. this is not a competitive process betweeen the two. Kavanaugh has to be treated on his own merits. And within the context of what he has been through (without reference to what ford has been through, which is completely irrelevant to the decision at hand).

Kavanaugh, in my view, clearly lied in his evidence (what devils traingle, boofing etc means). However, none of the lies pertained in any way to the allegations at issue. And more importantly, there is absolutely now evidence of him lying (orpther thaapn the supposition of me and others).

The senates role is to advise and consent; that is fundamentally in relation to his qualifications for the job. It is not to decide on whether he is a god guy, or even of good character for that matter.

Elections have consequences unfortunately. And the 2016 election has real life consequences. Like this.

Originally Posted by drkpower
What a retired SC Justice says doesn't really matter one way or the other; though I would be interested in hearing the audio rather than a tweet saying what he said. THis is a politically charged scenario so actually hearing what people said, rather than trusting one person's perception, is important. Whichever side of the aisle you sit on.

Whether you believe he is the right person for the job is neither here nor there; your not the decision maker. The senate is. And the actual evidence they have been provided is very strong in respect of his ability to do the job, from organisations as diverse as the FBI and the ABA.

well it kind of does given that he's actually held a position on the court judge Kavanagh is hoping to be on.

The senate a political body which helps decide a position for what is meant to be a non political position. I realise that isn't the fault of judge Kavanagh but it's clearly a horrible system.

Except the ABA wrote a letter against his nomination so that's hardly good.

And the FBI didn't offer any evidence as to his ability to do the job, all they did was (apparently) say there was no evidence (from the very limited number of people they were allowed to question) of his having assaulted Professor Ford.

looksee wrote: »

And the FBI didn't offer any evidence as to his ability to do the job, all they did was (apparently) say there was no evidence (from the very limited number of people they were allowed to question) of his having assaulted Professor Ford.

True; the evidence as to how he did his job has been provided in the some 10,000 documents and testimonials delivered to the senate judiciary committee in the past few months, which have been the subject of extensive evidence, examination and crosss examination, before that committee for the last few weeks, before anyone got interested in this issue.

batgoat wrote: »

The lies did pertain to the allegations, he was trying to paint himself in an entire different light to make the allegations less credible. He was making himself out to be a an innocent studious teen rather than a jock who treated women like they were games. Plus he'd never drink on a weekday....

How does drinking on weekdays, drinking (heavily) in college, puking from drink (boofing), engaging in a threesome (devils triangle), or even being a bit of a dick in college (which appears to be the case) pertain to any of the allegations against him in respect of sexual assault and rape?

We're any of those matters pertinent to those alllegations, many people would be in the dock right now.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Another conspiracy goes down in flames...

https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1047930830012796928

what conspiracy ? So it seems that there is at least two meanings to Devil's Triangle then.

That very helpful letter(why couldn't judge Kavanagh have given an explanation like that ?) would have stopped all the guessing and filling in blanks. Judge Kavanagh said it was a drinking game but if he'd said it was a drinking game and gave the above explanation it wouldn't have been an issue and the dems wouldn't have had anything to use.

looksee wrote: »

'They gave him a rating of 'well qualified' ' - that was before the hearing or any mention of it. Subsequently they asked for a thorough FBI investigation, which has not been carried out - or if it has (in 6 days and with very limited scope) it is being kept very secret, which does not inspire confidence.

Yes, they gave him the highest rating available.

And, you are right they asked for an appropriate and thorough investigation. And that brings us round in a circle to what is an appropriate and thorough investigation. I have no idea of what the terms of reference the White House gave the FBI, but equally there has been no comment from the FBI that they need to do further investigations, or that they have uncovered leads that might lead to corroborative evidence (should they be given more time) thus far not found.the FBI as we have seen are not adverse to pushing back against the White House.

So right now, we have the highes rating available, we have an investigation done which has uncovered nothing corroborative. Those are the facts.

Christy42 wrote: »

You say it is a fact that there was a thorough investigation and your entire evidence of it is that you have not seen anything to contradict it. That is not evidence of a thorough investigation.

We do have plenty of evidence he lied on the stand from those who knew him at the time.

I never said it is a fact that a thorough investigation was performed.

What evidence of him lying do you have?