Job done for the democrats here. It doesn’t matter whether he is innocent or not, he is damaged goods now enough muck has been spread. There will always be a question about his temperament after his performance the other day.
How the fuck are the FBI going to investigate this accusation from 30 odd years ago? Are they just going to interview the Kavanaugh and Ford and flip a coin to see what the result is.
They can interview the three others Blasey Ford claims were at the party. All three have said they don’t remember any such party but the FBI might be able to jog their memory 
They can subpoena her therapy records. She provided records from 2012 to the Washington Post when she did her interview after going public, but refused to provide them to the Senate. Which in itself is interesting, she was willing to provide supporting evidence to a newspaper when making her allegations but not to the investigative body trying to uncover the truth.
I would say her therapists records hold a lot of information which could help solve this case. For one thing they could show how much she actually remembered of the incident in 2012, and how much of the details she now remembers were based on recovered memories with her therapist, which are very controversial in terms of their reliability.
If the FBI got George Hincapie to shop Lance Armstrong, they can break those three.
She’s saying the therapy records are inaccurate anyway. The records say 4 men involved where as what she actually told the therapist was 4 men present that night but only 2 committed sexual assault and therapist misunderstood / misrecorded.
Surely she must have undergone therapy prior to 2012? I just have a hard time buying the idea that a lecturer on hidden memories suddenly decides she has a hidden memory of her own. A tall story. Even if she’s lying about that it doesn’t mean incident didn’t happen though.
Is there a possibility that she is mis-remembering what happened, that she was assaulted at another party and has the 2 events mixed up?
Why wait till now? Why not in 2012? Why not earlier?
I think kavanaugh is ruined even is he gets to the supreme court
He’ll just become another joke of a judge like Clarence Thomas.
I don’t think any reasonable person would claim she is lying (even though contrary to what liberals say she has plenty incentive to lie). I am convinced her testimony at the hearing is her current memory of the incident. How this memory was arrived at and how much it matches the actual alleged incident is an entirely different set of questions.
Why come forward now and not in 2012? Her first disclosure we know of of an incident was in 2012 in couples therapy. At the time Romney was leading in the polls and Kavanaugh was widely reported in the media as his pick for the Supreme court. Her husband specifically said she was worried about Kavanaugh being appointed in 2012.
If Kavanaugh gets to the Supreme court it would be very hard to dislodge him, he would have to be impeached and that is a tall order as we saw with Bill Clinton.
Amazing how some people always try to claim it’s the woman who “misremembered”.
As opposed to a man who has already perjured themselves, is a partisan political operative in hock to a president who has lied over 4,000 times, and by numerous accounts was a very heavy drinker during the period in question.
Are you saying that if the FBI uncover credible evidence that a Supreme court judge committed a crime the judge would not face any consequences? Surely they would be forced to resign at the very least.
No. If the FBI uncovered evidence that a Supreme court justice committed a crime, I would expect that it would be prosecuted. There are plenty examples of this where federal judges, although not Supreme court, were impeached and removed after being convicted. In the history of the US, one Supreme court justice was impeached but not removed (the Senate did not reach the 2/3 majority required) and one justice resigned under threat of impeachment.
The bar is very high for impeachment, without an actual criminal conviction. Anything that’s seen as being partisan is pretty assured to never achieve impeachment.
I think you’re neglecting the distinction between a “balance of probabilities” bar that applies to “job interviews” like this (ie. more than 50% likely that the incident occurred) and a “no reasonable doubt” test that applies when deciding to prosecute someone.
I don’t know what the threshold for impeachment is. Just whatever the Senate decides itself is enough?
We’re discussing a sitting Supreme justice, not someone being interviewed for the position. Precedent says for federal judges to be impeached there needs to be a criminal conviction.
The House and not the Senate instigate an impeachment process. The bar as stated in the constitution is “impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.
The perjury word is being thrown around a lot by some commentators, but is extraordinarily difficult to prove to a level that would result in removal from office. Bill Clinton was a proven liar who perjured himself under oath, but although the House voted to impeach him, not one Democrat voted against him in the Senate.
Did Kavanaugh lie under oath about his drinking?
Good luck proving that. He said he liked beer, sometimes drank too much beer, but never blacked out which is what Democratic senators were trying to get him to admit to (which would corroborate not remembering attacking Ford). How do you prove that someone blacked out after drinking beer 30 years ago?
Have you ever blacked out from drinking too much beer Matty?
Excellent post. Theres no reason to not believe Ford who comes across as credible and decent. But also kavanaugh, who comes across as a bit unstable, but might have no recollection of an incident that he might have deemed some sort of mis placed hi jinks, like the top shaggers did on this island? Certainly given his age, alcohol, and the passage of time. He should be vetted more thoroughly as he doesnt seem suitable on what we’ve seen for the job. But does 30 years good conduct not stand for something? but its politics at the end of the day, trump wants him in for protection, the dems wont even consider him because of that. The appointment for life span is unnecessary and really aggravates the seriousness of the choice.
Judges! who’d trust them? Brett knew!
Everyone who starts drinking at 17 suffers occasional memory loss by the time they’re in their 20s at least, including me, Marty and Brett Kavanaugh.
Is that true? I’m no expert on the subject but I’ve read that it’s highly individual and some people experience black outs and others don’t. The amount the average person would need to consume is pretty significant as well (0.2 - 0.3%?), which is why I specifically asked about beer as you’d need to do some serious beer drinking to get to those levels.
Perhaps some of the resident alcoholics can comment further, but my sense is there’s a hell of a difference between being visibly impaired/drunk and getting to the point of a black out.
Seems Barf knew a lot more than he was letting on about what was going to come out.
This is very funny. Barf got in a fight with a guy he thought was the lead singer of UB40. 
As you do.
This is presumably where his doppelganger theory originated from.
I nearly say he’d drunk too much red, red wine, but Barf liked beer, oh boy did he like beer. He still likes beer.
Did somebody say Barf liked beer? 