Because whether or not the White House put limits on it, it also only followed up on a couple of items that GOP Senators said they wanted looked at. Which didn't include (among many other things) the extent to which Kavanaugh over-drank in high school and college — because he "admitted" that sometimes he drank a wee bit too much and that, well, he still likes beer.
Except that doesn't get into alleged behavior about violence and blackouts while intoxicated, but apparently only Democratic Senators were interested whether he was lying about all that (or could remember it at all) … and, of course, the Democratic Senators were already voting No, and they're a minority on the Judiciary Committee, so why bother investigating what they wanted?
Just worth noting for when folk chime in (today or five years from now) that "Hey, the FBI checked him out yet again and he came out clean, so he must be the boy scout he keeps claiming to be, so quitcherbitchin."
[h/t +Les Jenkins]
White House confirms FBI’s Kavanaugh investigation only looked at what Republican senators wanted
Raj Shah says it’s irrelevant whether Trump’s Supreme Court pick had memory lapses since he admitted he likes beer.
And if the final vote goes as expected, one can even claim that the renegade Republicans only wanted an FBI study to give them cover for a "yes" vote. Regardless of the specific personalities, it's better to have a President with you than against you.
Whether this will energize Democrats in Maine (Collins' home state) in November is yet to be determined. Presumably no effect in Arizona, where Flake is on the way out anyway.
Of course, if the final vote does NOT go as expected and Kavanaugh is rejected in the end, it's the Republicans who will be energized in November.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/brett-kavanaugh-vote-confirmation-protests-fbi-report-senate-latest-today-2018-10-05-live-updates/
I'm sorry, but I know you're extremely upset with Judge Kavanaugh's appointment, but, isn't 7 FBI investigations enough? And, are we going to hold people accountable for what one did in High School and College? I've read that you weren't part of that crowd and didn't act in these manners.
However, all of the accusations have been hearsay or if he was drinking, he still never missed going to Mass. The man is more than qualified than a few others on the Supreme Court right now. Yes, was he upset, sure, I but you'd act the same way if someone accused you of something that happened 30 plus years ago. I guess innocent until proven guilty isn't the norm any longer. He's apologized for his testimony, but I would have been just as upset, as you would have been.
I'm ashamed on how our side is acting. They are and have been acting like spoiled children since the election, You didn't see this type of behavior from the Tea Party. The Republican Senators are being threatened with violence if they vote yes, along with harassment of their families. When Obama was president and his appointments came up, Sotomayor got a 69-31 vote.
It all boils down to everyone worring that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Well, President Trump did say he was pro-life and believes that this issue should be a STATE issue. Roe v. Wade wasn't legislation, it was a lawsuit. You don't see this type of violent protest in the UK with abortion issues because the House of Commons passed legislation.
If you want to change the laws, do it the right way with Congress, not with the Supreme Court. They're not part of the legislative process, it's not their job.
Elect Congress persons or Senators that have the courage to enact laws you deem fit for the country. However, you'll never see that because they're only worried about getting re-elected. Take Senator Feinstein, she's doing this only to be re-elected and show her extremely leftist constituents that she's still a leftist. She's in a tight race with DeLeon. She's 85 for goodness sake. She should go retire and spend all that money she funneled to her husbands companies over the years.
You want change, don't use the court, elect people strong enough to change the country.
THE BOGLE✌️😎🥋🌊🤟✊️
Hooray, Hooray, Hooray
Let’s Congregated For Equal Justice Alongside Equal Opportunity For A Legitimize Growth To Whom Will Reflect, As We All People In God We Believe Or Not With Respect & Dignify For All. Therefore:Students, Coaches. Teachers, Professors, Parents, Grandparents This Is All Us For A Gigantic Fair Deal Prosperity. Health& Marijuana Community Development Initiative. Again Trumpism Is The Future Of America& Commonwealth Vive La REPUBLIQUE. VIVRE Avec L’ Humanity. So Long From Global Cohabitation LLC & MANY OTHERS 🏊🏻♀️🚴♂️🏃🏾♀️🇩🇪🇱🇾🎧✍️💦🥥📖☀️🧘♀️✋🤟✊️❄️👀🐝🦋💪👩🏻🎓✌️😎💧🎻🌊❤️🥋🌏⚽️
ELECT NOT THE CORRUPTED PERFECT BUT MORE OF THE RIGHT LEGISLATORS FOR YOUR HOMELANDS✋
Did you really think Trump and his FBI would be impartial during this whole thing
I think the issue of FBI investigation and FBI supplemental background investigations are getting conflated in the common language
What was requested from the WH was a supplemental background investigation.
People are thinking erroneously that this was perhaps a Criminal investigation.
Given he'll. Judge
I liked beer, I think. What was the question?
+clip video you women r naughty
+James Develo he lied under oath!
Your. Like an air purifier, sometimes it works most it doesnt
+Jay Gerlach In that regard, Collins' statement supporting the nomination is interesting. Perhaps she's conflating the issue, or perhaps she's doing it because others are conflating the issue.
= = =
She said while she believed Christine Blasey Ford, who alleged Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager, the allegations "fail to meet the 'more likely than not'" standard. She said she believes voting against Kavanaugh without witnesses or proof could start a "dangerous" precedent.
"The Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them," she said on the Senate floor.
= = =
While "more likely than not" is a less rigorous standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt," it's still interesting that Collins referenced any standard. Were Kavanaugh being interviewed for a position with a law firm, any taint of impropriety could be enough to scuttle his job chances, "presumption of innocence" or not.
I'll grant that the Democrats' argument "isn't there anyone better" is a delaying tactic and/or a Merrick Garland tit-for-tat move.
P.S. (if I haven't gone tangential enough) If Kavanaugh isn't on trial, then Ford isn't on trial either. Supposedly.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/05/brett-kavanaugh-sen-susan-collins-voting-yes-giving-republicans-enough-votes/1536064002/
I think that looking at this from the standpoint that presumption of innocence and concepts of burden of proof are exclusive to a court of law or a trail is strawmanning the argument. +John E. Bredehoft
Doesn't matter court of law or sc nominee hearing – do they not both occur under oath?
Concepts of Burden of Proof, and presumption of innocence are common sense and logical.
They are not mutually exclusive to courts of law.
These concepts are sacrosanct to ANY society built around the rule of law.
You example of a law firm using discriminating hiring practices could in fact simply us Judge Kavanaugh's testimony regarding his drinking as enough to disqualify him from a position at the firm. That would be that firm's prerogative.
Then there is the concept of "wolf"
I've heard "Wolf" 1 too many times from the media – that I no longer believe them when they cry "wolf"
I see ALL of the noise regarding Judge Kavanaugh as nothing but cries of "wolf"
+James Develo Kavanaugh needs to choke on a pound of salt. He's a rapist & a perjurer.
+Kenny Waters Then there is a question for you : Do you think the FBI was impartial in what so-called ' Russian Collusion ' ?
+Peter Peters What did he ( Kavanaugh) lie ?
+Tri Nguyen I don't know what to believe anymore
+John E. Bredehoft Most of what I've been reading today has been "Will this create a Republican bump?", even / especially with Kavanaugh's apparent triumph.
+James Develo I realize it's fairly futile given the apparent mass cut-and-paste assembly of your argument, but just to get it down …
I'm sorry, but I know you're extremely upset with Judge Kavanaugh's appointment, but, isn't 7 FBI investigations enough?
Your presumptions seem to be that (a) all FBI investigations are revisiting the same material, the same people of interests, the same allegations or potential lines of investigation, and (b) all FBI investigations are given free rein to go wherever the evidence points, and for however long they take. Neither seems to be the case.
And, are we going to hold people accountable for what one did in High School and College?
(1) Yes, sometimes people are, in fact, held responsible for what they did in HS and college, when they were actually arrested, charged, and convicted in that timeframe. I'm sure any number of cases can be found in the daily newspaper. If his crimes come to light decades later, does that actually excuse them from social approbation, whether or not he can be criminally charged?
(2) If credible evidence was brought to light that, in high school, Judge Kavanaugh vivisected puppies and then set them on anthills to watch them being consumed alive, would that be considered an egregious enough act to cast his present judicial demeanor, even after a life ostensibly free of further horrors, in doubt? If so, then what should that threshold be?
(3) As many (including myself) have noted, what is at issue is not just what Judge Kavanaugh did then, but his response to it now. If he didn't do something, then his denial of it now is, of course, legit. If he did it, though, then even if it's long past the statute of limitations, his attitude and denial of it now is, it seems to be, of significant consequence, whether he is taking that stance to secure a seat on the Supreme Court or only protect is reputation.
I've read that you weren't part of that crowd and didn't act in these manners.
True.
However, all of the accusations have been hearsay or if he was drinking, he still never missed going to Mass.
Surely the sign of innocence and probity is arranging one's drinking schedule around socially / familially demanded weekly displays of piety.
The man is more than qualified than a few others on the Supreme Court right now.
Has anyone actually questioned his qualifications? Or is that just to make the assembled discussion a bit more obscure?
Yes, was he upset, sure, I but you'd act the same way if someone accused you of something that happened 30 plus years ago.
I'm sure that if I were being justly confused, I'd start ranting, on national TV and in front of the US Senate, about left-wing conspiracies funded by outside agitators seeking vengeance for the 2016 election, and being the target of a cabal of Clinton supporters. Perfectly natural. I'd also get all snarky and back-talking to US Senators.
No, wait, I wouldn't. Because I've learned (one thinks) as a judge who must not only be a neutral party, but must appear neutral and non-prejudicial, to rein in my outrage, especially outrage apparently targeted at one party, or one set of causes.
For what it's worth, I believe that I would take the same attitude regarding a liberal nominee who broke into a rant about the Koch Brothers and accusations of revenge over their opposition to the War in Iraq.
I guess innocent until proven guilty isn't the norm any longer.
First, strictly speaking that's a criminal justice concept. Judge Kavanaugh was not on trial.
To the extent that this was a (highly consequential) job interview, sufficient or believable accusations, even without criminally conclusive evidence, would naturally have an effect on the hiring process. And if, in a panel interview, the candidate started shouting and sneering at half the panel as being in some sort of conspiracy against him, nobody would be surprised if he weren't hired.
He's apologized for his testimony, …
And I respected that. But it didn't change my view of his actions, then and there, in a highly public and politially fraught situation. He either intentionally came out with guns blazing to rally support from the Right, or else he was a loose cannon, speaking (by his own admission, then) intemperately. Neither seems to qualify him for a seat on the highest judicial body in the land.
… but I would have been just as upset, as you would have been.
And, yet, Dr. Ford did not get up there and start railing at the right-wing conspiracy to discredit and smear her, or even assert that prep school white mail privilege was in lockstep to deny and dismiss everything she said and destroy her reputation and her family's lives.
Judge Kavanaugh had a choice of how to react. Even if innocent as the driven snow, he blew that choice in my eyes.
I'm ashamed on how our side is acting.
Sorry, whose side is "our" side?
They are and have been acting like spoiled children since the election,
Sorry, how have they been acting like spoiled children (vs. the "other" side acting like spoiled children who were just put in charge)?
You didn't see this type of behavior from the Tea Party.
Right. The Tea Party never held rallies and protests. The Tea Party never banded together with the Birthers. The Tea Party never questioned the legitimacy of the election, or the winning candidate for President, or the patriotism of the folk who didn't agree with them.
The Republican Senators are being threatened with violence if they vote yes, along with harassment of their families.
I condemn anyone actually making violent threats toward, or harrassing the families of, legislators.
I also condemn those making violent threats toward, or harrassing the family of Dr. Ford.
When Obama was president and his appointments came up, Sotomayor got a 69-31 vote.
Maybe because believeable people didn't accuse her of attempted rape.
On the other hand, don't forget that once the GOP had the ability to do so, they sidelined and blocked a whole raft of Obama judicial appointments, including a centrist Supreme Court nominee for a year — showing a willingness to leave a seat empty which makes their current rush to get Kavanaugh voted on clearly political.
It all boils down to everyone worring that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
I don't deny that I have grave concerns over what I expect from Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court — about more than just Roe v Wade, though that's a significant issue. My concerns over Kavanaugh go well beyond that, and my arguments about any other right-wing nominee from Trump's Special List of Federalist Society-Approved Justices would be quite different.
Well, President Trump did say he was pro-life
President Trump says a lot of things. In this case, my gut feeling is that he's talking purely for the sake of a block of his voters, to the extent that I would wager a moderate amount of money that he has paid for abortions for his coterie of sex partners.
and believes that this issue should be a STATE issue.
Again, I don't believe that is his actual belief for a moment, but it's certainly the public position he has tkane.
Roe v. Wade wasn't legislation, it was a lawsuit.
So was Brown v. Board of Ed. A lot of landmark rulings stem from lawsuits, because profound changes are easier for private parties to challenge than vote-concerned legislaturs.
You don't see this type of violent protest in the UK with abortion issues because the House of Commons passed legislation.
Um … generally speaking you don't see a lot of "violent protest" about Roe v Wade, either.
The UK political system, and lack of Constitution or strong constitutional court system, make this a bit of apples and oranges.
If you want to change the laws, do it the right way with Congress, not with the Supreme Court. They're not part of the legislative process, it's not their job.
No, their job is to determine act as a final court of appeals, including how the US Constitution applies to a matter and to federal and state laws.
That said, in this particular case (among many others) the question is meaningless. If the Congress passed a law saying that abortion should be legal along the same lines that Roe did, they would in turn be faced with law suits from states claiming a lack of federal jurisdiction under the Constitution to so legislate. It would come down to the same question before the Supreme Court.
Elect Congress persons or Senators that have the courage to enact laws you deem fit for the country.
Then why have a Constitution at all? Not that having congressfolk who align with my beliefs would be something I wouldn't welcome, but ultimately any such actions get tested in the Supreme Court against the justices' views of the US Constitution.
However, you'll never see that because they're only worried about getting re-elected. Take Senator Feinstein, she's doing this only to be re-elected and show her extremely leftist constituents that she's still a leftist. She's in a tight race with DeLeon. She's 85 for goodness sake. She should go retire and spend all that money she funneled to her husbands companies over the years.
My opinions of Senator Feinstein are not favorable, but they are also not germane to this discussion, as nice of a distraction as they provide.
You want change, don't use the court, elect people strong enough to change the country.
That's a fine argument, but it also belies the whole GOP monomania to get a majority on the Supreme Court, and is yet another tangent from your massive mash-up of every Fox News talking point. So, what was your thesis again?
+Kenny Waters Considering the FBI a monolith that acts for (or against) Trump doesn't seem supported by the facts.
That said, whether or not the FBI background investigation team was politically motivated or not, the White House has basically admitted that the extended background investigation was cover for what the Senate GOP (and, presumably, the White House) wanted done, by explicit limitation of what investigative lines were pursued.
https://thinkprogress.org/raj-shah-kavanaugh-cnn-fbi-investigation-blackouts-memory-lapses-fb5231fb1649/
+Dave Hill were statements made under oath?
Presumption of innocence and burden of proof do not exclusively belong in the court of law.
The are concepts based on logic and fairness.
Can you prove a negative?
What do you think – Proving your innocence is? – it's attempting to prove a negative.
Saying this isn't a court room therefore burden of proof and presumption of innocence don't matter – is the most absurd strawman I've EVER seen regarding our fundamental concepts of logic and fairness in a society built on the rule of law.
You know the Nazi's round people up as jews simply based on a neighbors allegation.
+Jay Gerlach Perhaps I might clarify. The GOP supporters of Kavanaugh have tried to frame accusations against him as though this were an actual criminal investigation. Is there enough evidence to convict him of criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt? No? Then clearly he's innocent and we should just ignore the accusations.
But even in courthouses there are two levels of burden of proof. In a criminal trial, it's that the accusations be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it's that the accusations be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
In real life, such burdens of proof are often even less firm. "Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach." Or, in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, the question I heard asked was, "Would you let him babysit your kids?"
What is the proper burden of proof here. Do we require any allegation be so conclusive that it could be (statute of limitations aside) actually brought to trial? Do we accept any accusation as a reason to reject the nominee? The truth is clearly somewhere in-between. Where that line is represents something of a judgment call. In my case, I believe there is enough doubt as to Kavanaugh's innocence to have warranted blocking him from the bench.
Clearly the Senate GOP (and one Dem) disagreed.
On the other hand, since you've obliquely accused me of being a Jew-murdering Nazi (and since a glance at your profile indicates you're nobody I would profit from conversing with), aloha.
I tend not to simply point to what others have said without providing a digest of their arguments, but I'll just point to this as covering a lot of the arguments I've rambled around above a lot more clearly than I have.
doycetesterman.com – I Believe Dr. Blasey Ford – Doyce Testerman
+Dave Hill you shouldn't insult people by assuming one "cuts and pastes" their views. That is extremely insulting and one might derive as an elitist point of view. If you were thoughtful and searching for the truth, like you claim, you'd look at a simple fact, both Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford were under oath, therefore, speaking to them about what both have just stated under oath with the consequence of perjury is null. I can only imagine what it will be like in 25-30 years when one is held accountable for a "tweet" one did when in middle school or god forbid, high school. The vast majority of humans are very flawed in our high school and college years. You being the exception. But, I guess we should ignore Bill Clinton's accusers of rape, Ted Kennedy's car driving habits, etc…
The point is that the actions from the Democrat party were shameful. Senator Diane had this information since July. If you can't legislate properly, then don't use the courts to force others to believe in the truly enlightened manner that you poses.
You did state he was a political hack, which implies he's just a lap dog. Not every Tea Party member or rally spoke of the birther issue, in fact, Ms. Hillary Clinton's campaign started that rumor.,
Tea Party events' never had the vulgar display the we've seen the last 3 to 4 weeks.
Dr. Ford's testimory, while seemly convincing-side note-didn't bother you when you watched it that she seems almost childlike in her mono tone voice??-yet, she's credible but can't remember which year-keeps changing depending if you read the Washington Post, her first account or her well coached testimony, can't remember the place, person she arrived with, person she left with, etc… Only she had one beer.
I've cut and pasted enough, I'm not looking for agreement, just clarity and you want to be right, I see what I read and view, and the never the two roads will cross paths. So be it. Peace
+James Develo Well said.
+Tri Nguyen thank you
+Dave Hill Man, just to mention, where did I state you were a Jew murder? Are you that shallow in your beliefs? That picture is from a Syrian Refugee camp run by Catholic Charities that my Nephew took. It reminds me how special this country is, for better of for worse, and how lucky I am. I shouldn't have fallen asleep while reading through your CNN click an paste of the "truth" You just want everyone to think and believe like you do. That, sir, is sad. I may not have a blog or as many degrees you have, but, I don't have to apply unfounded statements like you and the left hurl like baseballs. You claim to want the truth, but fail to see or digest the facts. It's a shame, seem to be a gifted writer. But, stick to the fiction side and try not to blend the non-fiction you espouse with fiction. Mahalo
+James Develo 😁
+James Develo My error, sir. That was in a comment by Jay Gerlach, since blocked. I apologize for misattributing his comment to you.