94 Comments - old pol - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:48 am: “if true” A truly a courageous position. - Montrose - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:48 am: Maybe Rauner is learning that giving non-answers doesn’t help him. Good on him for being direct and taking the right stance. - Fixer - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:50 am: Because of the time frames, it’s very hard to prove or disprove this allegation. I hope there is an investigation into it to try to settle the matter one way or another. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:52 am: Still courting that independent suburban woman vote. How’s that working so far? - old pol - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:53 am: Montrose - His answer is a classic “non-answer”. - Captain Illini - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:56 am: Sexual assault is not a political issue, and should not be denigrated to that status. What is happening here may taint those whom have unfortunately experienced assault or its precursors due to what Dr. Ford has done…that being part of this circus to derail a decent man. His story, corroborated by his friend Mr. Judge - named by Dr. Ford does not recall being at the party - the same recollection of Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford can’t remember squat about the event - except for Judge Kavanaugh’s name…curious. I unfortunately was the victim of sexual assault, and I can tell you every detail down to the smells I experienced that day - now 44 years ago… I.Don’t.believe.her. - Stones - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:57 am: It seems to me that plenty of allegations of this type are made against both Democrats and Republicans. This is more of a societal problem rather that being directed at a particular party. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:57 am: It would have been better if Governor Rauner reminded listeners that we have to recognize due process over politics. The FBI doesn’t investigate 37 year old accusations between two drunken teens in a house no one remembers on a date no one remembers at a party no one remembers and involving 2 or 4 witnesses, not sure who they were. - JoanP - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:03 am: “some anonymous person” She’s not anonymous. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:04 am: “Anyone else think it’s a bit suspect that every single time a Republican is running for office or being appointed to a position at the 11th hour some anonymous person comes out and accuses them of sexual misconduct.” That happens every single time, does it? I hadn’t noticed. You’d think the papers would be full of the stories this election season, since it happens every single time to Republicans. Curious, then, that Dennis Hastert won 13 elections for the state and U.S. Houses, and was the longest serving GOP speaker. And Ford isn’t “anonymous.” She’s reportedly in hiding due to death threats. - cler dcn - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:06 am: Rauner is in re-elect mode and has to seem moderate now at all cost. There is no way to prove these allegations no report was filed, the FBI declined to do anything at all. One is innocent until proven guilty and there is nothing here to work with. Rauner only wins with women by saying these things and the delay tactics by the Dems are just what Ruaner has done his whole term. Delay this long enough and may get through midterms before they pick a new justice. - Jibba - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:08 am: Every type of allegation like this needs to be thoroughly investgated, and action on his nomination needs to be held off until this is settled. We have to acknowledge that this may be difficult to settle due to the time frame, but this also allows or encourages other victims to come forward, if they exist, which might provide additional evidence even if the original complaint cannot be proven. Anyone who criticizes the alleged victim for her timing is simply a troll. - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:08 am: This would have been difficult to prove if reported at the time. Given the ages, 15 and 17, the records would have been sealed had something been found then. To sort out the truth 36 years later is not going to be possible. Let the FBI investigate both of them. It should not take long for Kavanaugh as he had already been vetted on other issues. It may take longer to investigate her and determine her credibility. I dislike the fact that she attempted to make the attack anonymously. That is very worrisome. Let the FBI investigate, but don’t expect clarity. - Notorious RBG - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:09 am: Someone should inform Mr. Balich that Dr. Blasey (#sayhername) did not make her allegation “at the 11th hour” - rather, she made it in July, and she asked to remain anonymous. Furthermore, this is not the first time nor the second time nor even the third time she has told this story. She told her husband in 2012. She told a therapist in 2013. She told another therapist thereafter. There are medical records documenting Dr. Blasey’s reports to her therapists. To say that Dr. Blasey, personally, came in with this story in the 11th hour to try and derail the nomination, or to intimate that there is some vast liberal conspiracy to make up stories against Republican candidates and appointees, is hogwash. What is happening in our nation today is a reckoning for white male leaders in every industry: politics, entertainment, media, fast food. Women everywhere are standing up for themselves as never before. Perhaps instead of questioning the motives of accusers, Mr. Balich should take a good look at the facts surrounding the behaviors of men who have been accused. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:11 am: –The FBI doesn’t investigate 37 year old accusations…– News to Hastert. By the way, when the FBI vets nominees on behalf of presidents, they go way back looking for anything. - Anon - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:11 am: Does anyone really want to be judged today based on the things that they did when they were 17? - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:12 am: Disliking that she attempted to make the charge anonymously does not make me a troll. - LXB - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:15 am: Bruce Rauner, welcome to The Resistance. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:16 am: LBM: she identified herself to investigators but initially asked to keep her name out of the media. That’s confidential, not anonymous. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:20 am: –Does anyone really want to be judged today based on the things that they did when they were 17?– You understand the allegation is attempted rape, not shoplifting candy bars? - Hysteria - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:22 am: I’m the mother of a daughter, so I want Ford to be taken seriously. But I’m also the mother of sons, so I don’t want every woman’s accusations to be taken as fact. It seems that she is being taken at her word, and he isn’t, and that’s troubling to me. It’s also troubling that, at least from what I’ve read, she doesn’t remember exactly where or when this happened. So how can it be investigated? And was she drinking? If so, maybe she doesn’t remember correctly. I just don’t see any way to get at the truth here. - BlueDogDem - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:23 am: The importance of judge selection,IMO,is the reason are country is so divided. Appointed individuals given lifetime terms. Here is where we need term limits. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:24 am: Are…..our. - Jocko - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:26 am: ==every single time a Republican is running for office or being appointed to a position== If you’re looking for sympathy, ask Merrick Garland. Speaking of irony, Kavanaugh wanted the Clinton investigation to go into graphic detail. - Hysteria - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:27 am: Also, if this isnt’t political, why aren’t the Dems going after Ellison like they are Kavanaugh? - Hysteria - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:28 am: She is not asking for a lifetime position on the highest court in the land, he is. Therefore, any allegations need to be taken seriously. Nothing should be discounted without investigation. LBB…I said “timing,” not manner. - Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:29 am: =To sort out the truth 36 years later is not going to be possible.= I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The allegation is that this occurred at a party with more than a few people in attendance including another individual who she claims participated in the assault. Stories become a bit clearer when an investigation is done by the FBI and not partisan politicians. Lying to the FBI has consequences for all parties involved. Don’t believe me? Ask Flynn, Papadopoulos, Gates, Manafort, etc. - Jibba - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:30 am: Apologies, 10:28 was me, intending to reply to Hysteria. My bad. - #5 - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:32 am: “I just don’t see any way to get at the truth here.” Than, let’s pick a nominee who doesn’t have sexual misconduct questions surrounding them. ” if this isnt’t political” Please refresh my memory. What was the reason Merrick Garland wasn’t given a vote? Surely, that wasn’t political. - Notorious RBG - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:33 am: As a mother (period), I want my children to grow up in a world where they do not have to fear sexual assault when they are left alone with another person. I want my son to be sensitive and compassionate, and understand willing consent. I want my daughter to be strong and assertive, and understand she has the option to say no at any time in any situation. I cannot teach them the importance of these lessons when our nation is led by powerful men who question the motives of accusers instead of investigating the validity of the accusation, who think it’s appropriate to brag about “grabbing them by the p***y,” give star athletes 6 months in jail plus probation for raping women behind dumpsters, or when 22% of the positions on our nation’s highest court are inhabited by men who have been accused of sexual assault or harassment that was never properly investigated. - #5 - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:33 am: “Than” should be “then”. Apologies. (At least it wasn’t in pirate speak.) - Notorious RBG - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:35 am: #5 — What was the reason Merrick Garland wasn’t given a vote? – Not political at all… /s - Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:41 am: = It seems that she is being taken at her word, and he isn’t, and that’s troubling to me.= We don’t know much about the accuser. But Kavanaugh’s “word” (and his memory) through the Senate hearings has been a bit consistent. But he’s claiming that he wasn’t even at a party that she says he attended with someone else that was in the room when the assault occurred. Given the very different explanations provided I would think that at a minimum we should be able to determine if he was there don’t you think? And does it really matter if it takes a few weeks to get to sort this out? If in fact this is a completely baseless allegation lets get that out in the open. It will serve as a lesson to others in the future of the humiliation that would accompany such an act. - Hysteria - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:42 am: Jibba - So whether we take allegations seriously depends on what office the person is up for? Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court nominee, so we’ll take that seriously, but Ellison is just a DNC chair running for AG or whatever it is, so we don’t have to take allegations against him seriously? - Nicky - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:44 am: This nothing more than a political delay tactic Typical dem move They want to delay the confirmation till after the nov elections to see if they gain any power to completely derail trumps nomination Rep need to confirm and move on - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:45 am: Everyone in America should be terrified of the mail arriving every day. Who knows what allegations could be brought up from 40 years ago that you’d have to remember and answer to. I can’t remember what I did last week, let alone decades ago. - Jibba - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:45 am: Hysteria…that’s an ad hominem attack, but thanks for playing. - Hysteria - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:47 am: Pundent - Is it not true that she doesn’t remember where or when the party was? Is the FBI going to round up every kid in the area who went to a party during a 2 year period? That’s actually not a rhetorical question because I don’t know, maybe that’s actually what they do. But given that there were only three of them there, according to her, and two of them deny being there, how can there be more witnesses? - Norseman - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:47 am: Will this short term pleasure for the GOP turn into a long term pain? They’re intent on ramming this through to ensure a long-term majority on the board. I’m just thinking of the headlines when the court supports Roe v. Wade restrictions. Two of Five Justices Voting for Roe Restrictions Tainted by Sexual Allegations Yes, getting Kavanaugh on the court ASAP is more important than an FBI investigation. - Steve Rogers - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:48 am: “Does anyone really want to be judged today based on the things that they did when they were 17?” That’s just dumb. Sure I did some stupid things when I was 17, but 1) I didn’t try to rape anyone and 2) I’m not a nominee for SCOTUS. A lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land should be held to a higher standard. - Norseman - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:49 am: Oops - should be “court” not “board” - Norseman - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:51 am: Hysteria, Ellison is getting adjudicated the same way Trump got adjudicated - by the voters. - Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:51 am: ===The FBI doesn’t investigate 37 year old accusations between two drunken teens in a house no one remembers on a date no one remembers at a party no one remembers and involving 2 or 4 witnesses, not sure who they were.=== Interestingly, she says she doesn’t remember whose house it was or the exact date, yet he has definitively stated that he wasn’t at the party. How would he know he wasn’t there if she can’t put a date and place on it? That statement by Kavanaugh is extremely suspect and for me, makes the accuser more credible. - Jibba - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:54 am: Nicky..that’s pretty hilarious calling delays a “typical Dem tactic.” Dontcha remember Merrick Garland in 2016 and McConnell’s constitution-shredding delaying tactics that outright stole a Supreme Court nomination from the Dems? Was that all in good fun? - Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:54 am: ===Does anyone really want to be judged today based on the things that they did when they were 17?=== This is a pretty ridiculous statement. People are judged for their lifetimes based on what they did at 17 all the time. How many are serving life sentences for something they did at 17? I’ll answer the question though. Am I proud of everything I did at 17? Nope. Did I commit criminal sexual assault or any other disqualifying criminal act at 17? Also nope. - ste_with a v_en - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:54 am: If Garland could wait for no reason, Kavanaugh can wait to have these claims be investigated. - Whatever - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:56 am: Jibba @ 10:18 ==Anyone who criticizes the alleged victim for her timing is simply a troll.== Agreed. She actually came forward months ago. The recipients of her letter are the ones sat on it. As for the FBI, what federal crime has been alleged that would give them jurisdiction to investigate? And what evidence could they possible obtain and review? If I were really paranoid or a troll, I would accuse “them” of requesting the investigation in hopes that the FBI would say “No,” so they could claim Trump is covering up. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:57 am: ===what federal crime has been alleged that would give them jurisdiction=== 1) It’s their job to do background checks. 2) Lying to an FBI agent is a crime. - Anon 316 - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:02 am: Joe - But, could someone claim that you assaulted her when nothing ever happened if for some reason she wanted to get back at you for something? Absolutely. That’s not what happened here, but what I mean is that anyone can bring allegations of this nature, and if it happened 36 years ago, then it’d be hard to prove or disprove. - Montrose - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:02 am: “Montrose - His answer is a classic “non-answer”.” No, He is saying there should be due process, and if found to be true, he should not be on the supreme court. Pretty straight forward and a reasonable response. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:03 am: –This nothing more than a political delay tactic Typical dem move– Sounds like you have the inside dope on the conspiracy. How did they get Ford to play ball, to take the death threats and world-wide notoriety and such? - NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:04 am: We can argue all day about the validity of her claims but given what she has relayed it is highly unlikely it would ever go from she said/he said. IMHO the issue is how the Dems have played this. They could have taken the high road and passed this information to the committee chair when they found out, but Feinstein didn’t. Instead, she trotted this out at the last minute. Very sharp move. With an election looming it puts the Republicans in a no win situation, ignore the claims and potentially active a larger group of women or delay the vote for further investigation and if the Dems take the Senate then Trump won’t get this justice approved anyways. I don’t like it but it’s smart politics. - old pol - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:19 am: Montrose - if we are talking “due-process” the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. She rolled a grenade into the room and walked away saying let someone else sort it out before you ask me any more questions. - Responsa - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:24 am: ==Than, let’s pick a nominee who doesn’t have sexual misconduct questions surrounding them.== What the last few days should have demonstrated to anybody is how very easy it is/could be for *any* man or woman in public office, or running for office, or up for an appointment, to “have sexual misconduct questions surrounding them” and tainting them, even if they are wholly innocent– as long as some person decides to make a vague accusation and regardless of whether their story is credible or able ever to be substantiated in any factual way. In this regard the comments of - Hysteria - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:22 am: seem to be among the most reasonable. Thank you, Hysteria whoever you are. - @misterjayem - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:29 am: “Does anyone really want to be judged today based on the things that they did when they were 17?” ‘Didn’t do anything that could be construed as attempted rape’ is an ethical bar that 17-year old me clears with some ease. Do others find that standard daunting? – MrJM - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:34 am: –What the last few days should have demonstrated to anybody is how very easy it is/could be for *any* man or woman in public office, or running for office, or up for an appointment, to “have sexual misconduct questions surrounding them” and tainting them, even if they are wholly innocent– as long as some person decides to make a vague accusation and regardless of whether their story is credible or able ever to be substantiated in any factual way.– Sure, who wouldn’t want the death threats and instant, worldwide notoriety of doing such an “easy” thing. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:37 am: “how very easy it is/could be for *any* man or woman” And, yet, with all of the people running, how many are under suspicion? - #5 - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:38 am: Sorry again. Anon @ 11:37 was I. - Norseman - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:40 am: === They could have taken the high road and passed this information to the committee chair when they found out, but Feinstein didn’t. === I kept going over that in my head and I don’t know what she could have done differently that would not have subjected her to criticism. My first reaction of the initial report was to be skeptical, but changed as things played out. Ford asked Feinstein to respect her anonymity. So if Feinstein had released it, what would the GOP do other than claim politics. Refer to FBI? That is what she eventually did, but the FBI would not have a name to start with. The GOP will not let FBI investigate now that they have a name. Do you really expect the GOP to support an investigation of an anonymous allegation? The outcome is clear. The GOP will ram this nomination through and the GOP women problem will be further exacerbated. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:48 am: How did they get ford to play ball ? That’s a conspiracy that should be investigated The timing of this whole thing is beyond suspicious. Over 35 years has gone by. And NOW she wants make a big Accusation And it is just an accusation. Remember innocent until proven guilty ?? Where’s the proof. - Huh? - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:49 am: Kavanaugh: “What happens at Georgetown, stays at Georgetown.” ‘Nough said. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:53 am: If she has PROOF. She needs to bring it forward. Not send the FBI on a wild goose chase looking for something that’s not there - Huh? - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:53 am: It isn’t any wonder Kavanaugh can’t remember the alleged event, there are reports that as a teen binge drank to blackout - Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 11:56 am: Another good “shoe on the other foot test” is the “Biden rule” that says a President cannot appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of his term. Careful with new rules, they can backfire - Perrid - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 12:03 pm: Everyone is throwing out red herrings. “Typical dem delay tactic” - I truly do not care, a serious allegation needs to be addressed no matter what you suspect, without evidence, is the motivation around it. Or screaming about how long Feinstein had the letter - at the time it was anonymous, the the victim wanted to remain that way. Only after the letter’s existence was leaked did she forward it to the FBI. If you don’t believe Feinstein, fine, but you have no evidence except your distrust of your political opponents. In other words, you are arguing with your emotions and not your head. - BlueDogDem - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 12:08 pm: Yes. The Feinstein delay is too blame. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 12:12 pm: Huh? Maybe ford was drinking to blackout Somehow she doesn’t remember much about that night Who’s party Where’s the party. When was the party - A Jack - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 12:26 pm: The FBI does security clearance checks. I had a secret security clearance and the FBI talked with people I went to high school with, teachers, neighbors, etc. The FBI could easily talk with fellow students at that prep school to find out if anyone remembers anything or if this is a pattern. - West Sider - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 12:51 pm: We don’t know exactly what happened between a 15 year old girl, and two 17 year old boys. We DO KNOW- (because there are contemporaneous notes), that the memory so traumatized her that it required her and her husband to enter therapy TWENTY YEARS later. So SOMETHING happened. Does that disqualify him? I don’t know. But the questions deserve answers. - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 12:52 pm: A Jack makes a good point on background checks. Feinstein could have asked the FBI to take a careful look at any information on sexual impropriety from high school forward. If they found a pattern, they would report it. I would expect them to do that anyway, but a request from Feinstein would have gotten their attention. - Jibba - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 12:56 pm: LP…again, with this “Biden rule” stuff, you are a font of fake news. No REPUBLICAN president has ever been denied a chance to fill a Supreme Court seat, but Dems have. As to all these lovely Anonymous posters asking for proof, there was a witness. Let him be interviewed, under oath, and let’s see what the story is. It is easy to deny recollection in the media. And would that really be all that difficult? Lastly, I return to an earlier thought. Abusers rarely stop at one. With publicity, others might come forward. If they add credibly, then the nomination seems threatened. If none exist, then this incident may not be as described. Alternatively, even if the story is true, in a life led without additional incidents a drunken teenage incident might not be disqualifying to higher office. Maybe. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 12:57 pm: Lucky P: when, just once, did the senate ignore a Republican supreme court nominee based on it being an election year. Your kool aid is showing. Some people make far too much of old off hand comments. - the Patriot - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:17 pm: How does the issue affect elections? Men are scared to death that they could lose everything if someone accuses them of something that happened decades ago that they cannot refute. All the evidence is gone so it is word vs word. A lot of women are married to men who know their family loses everything with an allegation. United States Senator said Men shut up, inferring that once accused, no due process is to be afforded. You have to wonder if you are alienating voters. This is not an issue in a vacuum, it is in a world where Donald Trump remains a historically popular President for a midterm mostly pushing back on these types of issues. - Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:24 pm: Patriot - I don’t think men have any reason to be “scared to death” as there’s no evidence that men have suddenly been systematically accused by decades a old false allegations. And if that were occurring the best way to prevent it would be a proper investigation. - the Patriot - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:32 pm: Pundent-I think you make my point, democrats are standing on national TV saying, no need to investigate, she said it, its true. Any accusation deserves proper investigation, I wonder whether democrats saying I believe her, toss his career away has blow back in Trumps America. - Ike - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:39 pm: Patriot- “historically popular”? - Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:42 pm: I haven’t heard any Democrats say this shouldn’t be investigated. The disagreement centers around who should perform the investigation. I say hand it over to the FBI and take the politics out of it. I mean that is what the FBI does after all. - @misterjayem - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:42 pm: “Men are scared to death that they could lose everything if someone accuses them of something that happened decades ago that they cannot refute.” I’m not. Speak for yourself. – MrJM - Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:52 pm: ==democrats are standing on national TV saying, no need to investigate.== I’m pretty sure the opposite is true, Democrats want an investigation. Which Dem said there should be no investigation? - dbk - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:03 pm: A Holton classmate of Blasey Ford’s named Christine King today posted on FB that the incident became known at the school and was discussed among students at the time. The classmate, who was a year older than Blasey Ford, knew Mark Judge well enough to invite him to her junior or senior prom - he stood her up, though, because he was too drunk to attend. She also knew the SCOTUS nominee, though not well. Anita Hill has a piece up on the NYTimes which provides an outline of what to her seems the most fair and neutral course to follow (independent investigator[s]). And there’s a piece along similar lines published on the NBC News site by five former federal prosecutors, who also offer reasons (based on their experience as prosecutors) as to why Blasey Ford’s allegation should be considered credible. It is also known that a group of former clerks and employees of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had written a letter on July 24 (or rather, the letter was from Cyrus Sinai, an attorney) to Senators Grassley and Feinstein, claiming that the nominee had to have been aware of Judge Alex Kozinski’s harassment (sexual) of female clerks, and that they (the employees) were willing to testify to this. Kavanaugh denied knowledge of Kozinski’s proclivities (which had a three-decade history and were well known on the elite judicial clerking circuit) and downplayed his decades-long personal friendship with Kozinski during his confirmation hearings. Background: Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski in 1991-1992; Kozinski had clerked for Kennedy; Kozinski helped Kavanaugh get a job clerking for Kennedy; Kozinski’s son clerked for Kavanaugh; Kozinski and Kavanaugh vetted candidates for clerkships with Kennedy; Kennedy pressed for Kavanaugh’s nomination as his replacement on SCOTUS. There is more to consider here: the culture of elite all-male prep schools (”What happens at Georgetown stays at Georgetown” - culture of silence, in other words), not to mention the fact that if Kavanaugh is confirmed SCOTUS will be entirely made up of justices from Yale and Harvard Law, including two justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who both graduated from Georgetown Prep. I’m with misterjayem: not having engaged in exually harassing behavior seems a pretty low bar for a SCOTUS nominee to pass. I know an awful lot of men, including male cousins and all my old high school male classmates and friends who passed it, and though some of them are lawyers, they’ll never be SCOTUS nominees. - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:22 pm: Wordslinger, Hastert was convicted for violating banking rules while paying blackmail, not for the rapes he committed. Had he contacted the FBI when first approached, he would have been outed as a sexual predator, but with no legal risk. The blackmailing victim could have ended up in jail. Is it just me or do we elect a disproportionate number of sexual deviants? - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:42 pm: If the FBI has time to investigate whether the “Lincoln’s hat” is really Lincoln’s hat … https://capitolfax.com/2018/09/19/im-thinking-the-hat-isnt-gonna-do-well-at-auction/ It has time to investigate the Kavanaugh situation. - Jibba - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:47 pm: I see on Huffpost that Senate Republicans are denying the request for the alleged witness to testify on Monday. Wonder why, if he has said in the media that Kavanaugh never acted that way, and he has no recollection of the night? - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 3:51 pm: The Gov actually stayed even on his response. His response is in line with the long standing idea of innocence until proven guilty. Kavanaugh is only accused at this point, he has not been tried. As much as I dislike the Gov, he said the right thing here. Ms Ford has the right to be heard. Mr Kavanaugh has the right to face his accuser and to a public and speedy trial. But we have the issue of the statute of limitations which has long expired. Maybe the only thing left is to ask both of them to submit to a functional MRI and respond to questions and maybe they results would be enough to satisfy who is truthful and who is not. Interesting technology with fMRI, and there is a facility in the DC area that uses it, wholly government owned. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 3:54 pm: ===But we have the issue of the statute of limitations=== No, we don’t. It’s a Senate confirmation hearing, not a courtroom. Try to keep up. - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:08 pm: Rich, I was meaning a trial for the alleged incident, not part of the Senate confirmation which would not prove guilt or innocence. Maybe I am looking at this wrong, but I do not see how the Senate Confirmation Hearing can decide the accusation is true or not. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:19 pm: - Steve Rogers - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:48 am: “Does anyone really want to be judged today based on the things that they did when they were 17?” That’s just dumb. Sure I did some stupid things when I was 17, but 1) I didn’t try to rape anyone and 2) I’m not a nominee for SCOTUS. A lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land should be held to a higher standard. …or even the highest standard? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:20 pm: ===Senate Confirmation Hearing can decide the accusation is true or not=== Congress investigates stuff all the time. C’mon. What world do you live in? - Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:24 pm: Looks like there is no statute of limitations in Maryland, should Ford decide to go to the police. https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/with-new-details-of-kavanaugh-allegations-could-the-supreme-court-nominee-face-criminal-charges/ - dbk - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:25 pm: @FormerParatrooper - But we have the issue of the statute of limitations which has long expired.- The Senate confirmation hearings are not a trial so the statute of limitations isn’t applicable. However, the state of Maryland doesn’t have a statute of limitations on felony sex crimes. Should Blasey Ford choose to pursue the case in a Maryland criminal court, this would become relevant. - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:40 pm: I stand corrected then. Thank you Rich and dbk for adding more info. - BlueDogDem - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:02 pm: Something about this doesn’t pass the smell test. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:46 pm: She may have filed late for multiple reasons. One is she not have remembered his name until she saw him at the hearings. - Pundent - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 8:03 am: Six years ago Dr. Blasey decided to seek medical treatment for an incident that has haunted her for 30 years. That’s not uncommon for abuse victims and is actually rather typical. Whether or not you believe her or Kavanaugh is irrelevant. An FBI investigation could be completed in 7-10 days by identifying wittnesses and with Dr. Blasey’s consent her doctors. An inconclusive investigation or one that clears Kavanaugh would lift the cloud over this and give Senators cover for confirming him. Given the lifetime appointment the minimal delay is inconsequential. I haven’t heard a logical argument against this and I’d view it the same regardless of party. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.