Kavanaugh

[Estonut]

I just found a highly-credible analysis of the letter that Feinstein received. Perhaps this is the reason that Feinstein refused to release for months.

BOMBSHELL: Christine Blasey Ford’s letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein revealed to be a total FAKE… contains 14 glaring errors that could only be committed by a poorly educated writer

These errors were first noted by another PhD.

Well, I can tell you as someone who has spent a good bit of time writing and editing that highly intelligent and well-educated people can and do make a lot of grammatical mistakes, ...

You do, too!

I looked at the letter again. Let's suppose she WAS the author.

She wrote, "The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others."

In the stories about the therapist's notes, the therapist had written that she said there were 4 attackers. She later said that the therapist had misunderstood her, and that there were 2 attackers, but 4 boys at the house party. Putting the 2 together, that means she went to a "house party" where the attendees were her and 4 boys. This has been her contention since 2012.

The problem is that, in her testimony, she said, "There were four boys I remember being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall," Ford said in her prepared remarks. "I remember my friend Leland Ingham attending."

Leland Ingham Keyser, Dr. Ford's long-time friend, is one of the people to be interviewed by the FBI. She has already stated she does not remember this happening to Dr. Ford, nor going to this party at all.

From now on, when you folks talk about Dr. Ford's credible account, please indicate which version it is to which you are referring.

[silverscreenselect]

Leland Ingham Keyser, Dr. Ford's long-time friend, is one of the people to be interviewed by the FBI. She has already stated she does not remember this happening to Dr. Ford, nor going to this party at all.

On Saturday, Keyser said through her lawyer in a letter to the committee that she was willing to "cooperate fully with the FBI's supplemental investigation" into Kavanaugh. "However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser's attorney, said. It continued that Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," the letter continued.

She's not saying she disputes Dr. Ford's account, and, indeed, she says she believes Dr. Ford. It's just that she doesn't remember a particular party. And there's a big difference between remembering a party at which nothing particularly memorable involving you occurred and remembering a party at which you were assaulted.

[silverscreenselect]

And, while we're at it, I'd say Matt Damon was terrific as Judge Kavanaugh on SNL last night.

[Estonut]

Leland Ingham Keyser, Dr. Ford's long-time friend, is one of the people to be interviewed by the FBI. She has already stated she does not remember this happening to Dr. Ford, nor going to this party at all.

On Saturday, Keyser said through her lawyer in a letter to the committee that she was willing to "cooperate fully with the FBI's supplemental investigation" into Kavanaugh. "However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser's attorney, said. It continued that Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," the letter continued.

She's not saying she disputes Dr. Ford's account, and, indeed, she says she believes Dr. Ford. It's just that she doesn't remember a particular party. And there's a big difference between remembering a party at which nothing particularly memorable involving you occurred and remembering a party at which you were assaulted.

I didn't say that she disputes it. I reiterated the fact that she does not corroborate it.

Something DID happen to her at that party, too. She was at a party with her good friend and 4 guys who were a year or two older than them. Her friend disappeared upstairs, then locked herself in a bathroom and then ran downstairs and out of the party, leaving her alone with 4 "stumbling drunk" older guys that she did not know. There's PLENTY to remember there, even though she wasn't in the room.

If a friend of mine had done that to me, I certainly would have talked to them the next day and asked, "What the hell happened last night?"

[silverscreenselect]

If a friend of mine had done that to me, I certainly would have talked to them the next day and asked, "What the hell happened last night?"

And if someone asked you about it the next week, you might well have remembered the incident. Especially if your friend gave an evasive non-answer. But not 36 years later.

I know I went to a number of parties in my high school and college days where people were drunk and carried on. I don't remember who was at what party or did what. Then again, I wasn't sexually assaulted at any of those parties either.

And the way she says she believes Dr. Ford's story is an indication that she may have some not fully formed memories of the event that strike her as lending credibility to Dr. Ford's account without being able to quite sort them out.

Again, if you look at what experts on sexual assault memories say, Dr. Ford's recollections are consistent with those of an assault victim, as are the inability of others to corroborate her story. That's especially the case in situation where, as here, the victim chooses not to discuss it immediately.

[flockofseagulls104]

For all the speculation and "I believe her" and "I believe him" and the "expert" opinion and analysis, here are the facts:

1. He says he didn't do it.
2. She says he did.

Unless there is a blue dress that is discovered, that is where we will be from now on.
Those that believe her will continue to believe her and will be 'revolted'.
Those that believe him will continue to believe him and will be determined he not be forever branded and that unsubstantiated accusations not be used as a political tool.

We have precedents.

Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas.

It is still, to this day, a he said she said situation.

Anita Hill became an icon on the left and is celebrated as a hero.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed and has had a stellar career on the court, with no credible accusations of harassment from that time forward. But he is and forever will be condemned by the left.

Bill Clinton

He was accused of having sex with one of his interns and firmly denied having done anything.
A blue dress with his sperm was found, proving that he lied to the country.
He is still an idol to the left.

So, I predict :

If Kavanaugh is confirmed:
All the accusers, even Swetnick, will be icons and heroes to people like bob-tel and aSSShole. They will write books and appear on all the correct media outlets.
Kavanaugh will serve and will be demonized by the left throughout his career.
The democrats will continue to use the strategy of personal destruction to attain their objectives.

If Kavanaugh is rejected:
All the accusers, even Swetnick, will be icons and heroes to people like bob-tel and aSSShole. They will write books and appear on all the correct media outlets.
The democrats will call for his removal from the bench and probably his disbarment.
He will become a pundit for the right.
The democrats will continue to use the strategy of personal destruction to attain their objectives.

[Beebs52]

For all the speculation and "I believe her" and "I believe him" and the "expert" opinion and analysis, here are the facts:

1. He says he didn't do it.
2. She says he did.

Unless there is a blue dress that is discovered, that is where we will be from now on.
Those that believe her will continue to believe her and will be 'revolted'.
Those that believe him will continue to believe him and will be determined he not be forever branded and that unsubstantiated accusations not be used as a political tool.

We have precedents.

Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas.

It is still, to this day, a he said she said situation.

Anita Hill became an icon on the left and is celebrated as a hero.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed and has had a stellar career on the court, with no credible accusations of harassment from that time forward. But he is and forever will be condemned by the left.

Bill Clinton

He was accused of having sex with one of his interns and firmly denied having done anything.
A blue dress with his sperm was found, proving that he lied to the country.
He is still an idol to the left.

So, I predict :

If Kavanaugh is confirmed:
All the accusers, even Swetnick, will be icons and heroes to people like bob-tel and aSSShole. They will write books and appear on all the correct media outlets.
Kavanaugh will serve and will be demonized by the left throughout his career.
The democrats will continue to use the strategy of personal destruction to attain their objectives.

If Kavanaugh is rejected:
All the accusers, even Swetnick, will be icons and heroes to people like bob-tel and aSSShole. They will write books and appear on all the correct media outlets.
The democrats will call for his removal from the bench and probably his disbarment.
He will become a pundit for the right.
The democrats will continue to use the strategy of personal destruction to attain their objectives.

Pretty much.

[silverscreenselect]

The democrats will continue to use the strategy of personal destruction to attain their objectives.

You seem to think that what Kavanaugh is accused of is a game that's being played by the Democrats. This woman has been plagued by memories of what Kavanaugh did for 36 years and has been in therapy since 2012. Kavanaugh's testimony and statements have been filled with contradictions and evasions but for you it's all "he said, she said" and there will be no definitive proof.

There are a number of rapists and child molesters in prison because a jury found them guilty strictly on the basis of "he said, she said" testimony. Again, you seem to think this is a 50/50 proposition. It's not. The vast majority of accusations of sexual misconduct are well founded (approximately 95%), especially in cases where there are multiple independent accusers. In fact, over 2/3 of actual rapes and sexual assaults are never reported.

You discount expert opinion, based on their analysis and interviews with many victims of sexual assault. These experts testify at sexual assault trials all the time, and the juries take their opinions into account. Apparently, those who are in a position to give an opinion as to how likely report is to be factual and accurate don't matter to you because they are saying something you don't want to hear.

The entire purpose of the MeToo movement is to call attention to how common sexual assault is among women and the difficulties they face in bringing accusations and having them believed. Attitudes like you and the Republicans on the committee displayed are one reason why we still have such a problem. Yet everything goes in one ear and out the other with you as you yell "he said, she said," as if it's some sort of magical mantra to protect someone whose politics you agree with.

[flockofseagulls104]

The democrats will continue to use the strategy of personal destruction to attain their objectives.

You seem to think that what Kavanaugh is accused of is a game that's being played by the Democrats. This woman has been plagued by memories of what Kavanaugh did for 36 years and has been in therapy since 2012. Kavanaugh's testimony and statements have been filled with contradictions and evasions but for you it's all "he said, she said" and there will be no definitive proof.

There are a number of rapists and child molesters in prison because a jury found them guilty strictly on the basis of "he said, she said" testimony. Again, you seem to think this is a 50/50 proposition. It's not. The vast majority of accusations of sexual misconduct are well founded (approximately 95%), especially in cases where there are multiple independent accusers. In fact, over 2/3 of actual rapes and sexual assaults are never reported.

You discount expert opinion, based on their analysis and interviews with many victims of sexual assault. These experts testify at sexual assault trials all the time, and the juries take their opinions into account. Apparently, those who are in a position to give an opinion as to how likely report is to be factual and accurate don't matter to you because they are saying something you don't want to hear.

The entire purpose of the MeToo movement is to call attention to how common sexual assault is among women and the difficulties they face in bringing accusations and having them believed. Attitudes like you and the Republicans on the committee displayed are one reason why we still have such a problem. Yet everything goes in one ear and out the other with you as you yell "he said, she said," as if it's some sort of magical mantra to protect someone whose politics you agree with.

You seem to think that what Kavanaugh is accused of is a game that's being played by the Democrats.
It is very possible. They are nothing if not game players.
This woman has been plagued by memories of what Kavanaugh did for 36 years and has been in therapy since 2012.
That is what she says. And it may well be true. But there is no PROOF that Kavanaugh was involved.

Our system of justice is based on the premise that a person is innocent of any accusation unless and until proven guilty. Throw as many 'expert' statistics you want. It is not proof, and this trial by the media is not a trial. If we forego the innocent until proven guilty standard, it will be much more of a problem than someone you don't want getting a seat on the SC. You and I are NOT a jury, and we have not been presented evidence by the rules established by centuries of precedent.

We are left with what we have, (see my post above) and no matter how much you hate republicans, conservatives, or me, that will not change.

[silverscreenselect]

Throw as many 'expert' statistics you want. It is not proof, and this trial by the media is not a trial.

You completely ignore the laws of evidence and proof. The testimony of witnesses is evidence, and it's been sufficient to sustain convictions for hundreds of years in the complete absence of anything else you are willing to consider. Expert testimony that explains why a particular witness' testimony is more or less likely to be true is also admissible.

The legal definition of "proof" is confirmation of a fact by evidence. Introduce enough evidence and you prove the fact to a court of law. Uncorroborated evidence can be sufficient. Ironically, most cases arise under the exact opposite circumstances, where criminals are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence (often because there were no witnesses to the crime).

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about in throwing words like "proof" and "evidence" around, you might want to do some basic legal research on those terms. There's plenty of it available.

[flockofseagulls104]

Throw as many 'expert' statistics you want. It is not proof, and this trial by the media is not a trial.

You completely ignore the laws of evidence and proof. The testimony of witnesses is evidence, and it's been sufficient to sustain convictions for hundreds of years in the complete absence of anything else you are willing to consider. Expert testimony that explains why a particular witness' testimony is more or less likely to be true is also admissible.

The legal definition of "proof" is confirmation of a fact by evidence. Introduce enough evidence and you prove the fact to a court of law. Uncorroborated evidence can be sufficient. Ironically, most cases arise under the exact opposite circumstances, where criminals are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence (often because there were no witnesses to the crime).

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about in throwing words like "proof" and "evidence" around, you might want to do some basic legal research on those terms. There's plenty of it available.

THIS IS NOT A TRIAL.

[Bob78164]

Throw as many 'expert' statistics you want. It is not proof, and this trial by the media is not a trial.

You completely ignore the laws of evidence and proof. The testimony of witnesses is evidence, and it's been sufficient to sustain convictions for hundreds of years in the complete absence of anything else you are willing to consider. Expert testimony that explains why a particular witness' testimony is more or less likely to be true is also admissible.

The legal definition of "proof" is confirmation of a fact by evidence. Introduce enough evidence and you prove the fact to a court of law. Uncorroborated evidence can be sufficient. Ironically, most cases arise under the exact opposite circumstances, where criminals are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence (often because there were no witnesses to the crime).

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about in throwing words like "proof" and "evidence" around, you might want to do some basic legal research on those terms. There's plenty of it available.

THIS IS NOT A TRIAL.

You're right. It's not. It's a job interview, and one which Kavanaugh flunked miserably with his performance on Thursday. No one will ever believe after this that he'll act as a neutral arbiter calling balls and strikes. He's there to use the bench to advance his own political preferences, which of course is exactly why Republicans in the Senate are hell-bent on forcing his confirmation through no matter what the facts are.

Moreover, with entirely credible allegations of serious misconduct being alleged against him, Kavanaugh isn't entitled to a presumption of innocence until a full and fair investigation has been conducted. In the realm of civil litigation, the process is called discovery, and a complaining plaintiff gets it as a matter of course if her allegations could possibly be correct and lead to liability. Only after such an investigation would he be entitled to that presumption. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

And, while we're at it, I'd say Matt Damon was terrific as Judge Kavanaugh on SNL last night.

OMG! This was perfect!

[Estonut]

You completely ignore the laws of evidence and proof. The testimony of witnesses is evidence, and it's been sufficient to sustain convictions for hundreds of years in the complete absence of anything else you are willing to consider. Expert testimony that explains why a particular witness' testimony is more or less likely to be true is also admissible.

The legal definition of "proof" is confirmation of a fact by evidence. Introduce enough evidence and you prove the fact to a court of law. Uncorroborated evidence can be sufficient. Ironically, most cases arise under the exact opposite circumstances, where criminals are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence (often because there were no witnesses to the crime).

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about in throwing words like "proof" and "evidence" around, you might want to do some basic legal research on those terms. There's plenty of it available.

THIS IS NOT A TRIAL.

You're right. It's not. It's a job interview, and one which Kavanaugh flunked miserably with his performance on Thursday. No one will ever believe after this that he'll act as a neutral arbiter calling balls and strikes. He's there to use the bench to advance his own political preferences, which of course is exactly why Republicans in the Senate are hell-bent on forcing his confirmation through no matter what the facts are.

Are you suggesting that the justices appointed by Democrats DO NOT use the bench to advance their own political preferences? Are you also suggesting that Democrats in the Senate are NOT hell-bent on denying his confirmation no matter what the facts are, nor who gets hurt in the process?

Moreover, with entirely credible allegations of serious misconduct being alleged against him, Kavanaugh isn't entitled to a presumption of innocence until a full and fair investigation has been conducted. In the realm of civil litigation, the process is called discovery, and a complaining plaintiff gets it as a matter of course if her allegations could possibly be correct and lead to liability. Only after such an investigation would he be entitled to that presumption.

I'm all for this, as long as both of them are subjected to a full FBI investigation. If so, you may be sorry what you wish for.

[Estonut]

Again, if you look at what experts on sexual assault memories say, Dr. Ford's recollections are consistent with those of an assault victim, as are the inability of others to corroborate her story. That's especially the case in situation where, as here, the victim chooses not to discuss it immediately.

Unless these experts on sexual assault memories have extensively interviewed both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, their opinions don't mean squat here, and this reeks of desperation on your part.

[Estonut]

No, she didn't. She had no intention of testifying anything anywhere until about two weeks ago.

Maybe. That does not mean that she wasn't preparing for it, anyway.

You must have gotten an "F" in Logic if you ever took it. She's been reliving the event for 36 years, probably every day.

You're right. She's had 36 years to get her story straight.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's Rachel Mitchell's report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-hired- ... asey-ford/

A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.

Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.

Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.

Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

[Bob Juch]

Here's Rachel Mitchell's report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-hired- ... asey-ford/

A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.

Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.

Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.

Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

At this point, I don't care whether Dr. Ford is found to be credible or not. Kavanaugh's rant at the beginning of his testimony to the Committee shows him to be a highly partisan person who should not be confirmed as a supposedly impartial judge. In addition, there are accusations he had lied about his drinking and sexual behavior. He does not have the character to be a Supreme Court Justice.

[Bob Juch]

Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Here is the full text of the statement:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... tw-nytimes

[Beebs52]

Here's Rachel Mitchell's report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-hired- ... asey-ford/

A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.

Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.

Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.

Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

At this point, I don't care whether Dr. Ford is found to be credible or not. Kavanaugh's rant at the beginning of his testimony to the Committee shows him to be a highly partisan person who should not be confirmed as a supposedly impartial judge. In addition, there are accusations he had lied about his drinking and sexual behavior. He does not have the character to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Ginsburg should be thrown off the bench then.

[jarnon]

Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Here is the full text of the statement:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... tw-nytimes

On Fox News, Kavanaugh portrayed himself as a choirboy, but as Trump reminds us, lying to the (fake) media isn't illegal. His Senate testimony made it clear that he was a heavy drinker. If the FBI catches him in a bald-face lie, they can charge him, and there goes his nomination. I doubt that shading the truth will prevent the undecided Senators from confirming him (though you can bet it'll be mentioned in hundreds of campaign ads).

[flockofseagulls104]

Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Here is the full text of the statement:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... tw-nytimes

On Fox News, Kavanaugh portrayed himself as a choirboy, but as Trump reminds us, lying to the (fake) media isn't illegal. His Senate testimony made it clear that he was a heavy drinker. If the FBI catches him in a bald-face lie, they can charge him, and there goes his nomination. I doubt that shading the truth will prevent the undecided Senators from confirming him (though you can bet it'll be mentioned in hundreds of campaign ads).

So, now we've established he's a serial rapist, a proprietor of a gang rape ring and a drunk. Jeez, the FBI needs to be completely overhauled for missing all this! 6 background checks!!! And the Senate confirmed him several times! How could they let this guy get so far!!!

I guess we need to put Hillary in jail for running a child prostitution ring out of a pizza shop. Allegations and accusations must be taken seriously.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's Rachel Mitchell's report..

What would you expect from the prosecutor who was handpicked by the Republicans to do a hatchet job on her (and then did such a poor job that they took over the questioning of Kavanaugh themselves)?

And is there any doubt that the activities of Congressional Republicans and Donald Trump affected Kavanaugh's account?

[silverscreenselect]

I don't have time to dig around for a citation right now, but the NYT is reporting that the FBI has been granted larger authority to investigate (presumably into some of the other allegations that have surfaced) and Jeff Flake has gone on record as saying that all credible allegations should be investigated.

Flake is showing far more backbone than all his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee combined.

[jarnon]

I don't have time to dig around for a citation right now, but the NYT is reporting that the FBI has been granted larger authority to investigate (presumably into some of the other allegations that have surfaced) and Jeff Flake has gone on record as saying that all credible allegations should be investigated.

Flake is showing far more backbone than all his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee combined.

NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!

Sounds like the failing New York Times agrees with Trump's denial of the fake NBC story. In reality, I think the FBI will investigate what the undecided Senators want to know. Corroboration of Ford's testimony, or proof of Kavanaugh perjury, will sink his nomination. Otherwise, he's on the Supreme Court.