Dianne Feinstein Withholding Letter Accusing Brett Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct

[Cozarkian]

I remember a Constitution where people were innocent until proven guilty. I guess you've never read your copy of it.

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for locking him behind bars. For a Supreme Court nomination, I think we should avoid a nomination where there is substantial evidence supporting the appearance of impropriety.

We should approach this situation very cautiously, as we don't want to set a precedent that supreme-court nominations can be sabotaged just by finding some kook to make a false allegation of decades-old misconduct, but let's take what we know.

She apparently told her husband a long time ago that she was physically abused. In 2012, additional details were discussed with a psychiatrist.

1) It seems unlikely that her, her husband, and her psychiatrist are engaged in a conspiracy to lie, so I'm inclined to believe something happened.

2) It is possible she was abused by someone else but is twisting the story to implicate Kavanaugh. However, since his name was brought up in the to her husband during or around the time of the 2012 therapy session, that would have required her to be predict that a republican would be president, that there would be a SC opening during said presidency, and that Kavanaugh would be the person appointed and to be so afraid of that outcome that she would put into motion a plan to stop that from happening "just in case." Why would she hate/fear Kavanaugh that much back in 2012 if he hadn't attempted to rape her?

Now let's look at the other side, is there some explanation as to why Kavanaugh wouldn't remember this event but she did?

1) Kavanaugh could have blacked-out from alcohol that night.

2) Kavanaugh and his buddy considered what they were doing as goofing around - the girl was never in danger raped, and since they knew they weren't actually trying to rape her, it wasn't a significant memory to stick in their minds. Essentially, Kavanaugh doesn't remember the event as "that time he sexually assaulted a girl." To him, it could be just one of those times he tried to hook up with some girl at a party.

Both of the above are plausible reasons Kavanaugh wouldn't remember the event and don't require him to be lying in an attempt to cover-up a past crime.

There is another possibility. This could be a case of mistaken identity. It's possible Ford's memory focused on the details and emotion of the event and not the individuals. Thus, it's possible the event happened but Kavanaugh was one of the boys at the event, not one of the boys that assaulted and that her mind decided to set on his name later in life when she ran into his name again as an important federal judge.

All in all, I would say there is certainly enough evidence to meet the threshold of "not a good candidate for supreme court justice," which is absolutely a lower standard than "guilty of a crime."

 

[fskimospy]

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for locking him behind bars. For a Supreme Court nomination, I think we should avoid a nomination where there is substantial evidence supporting the appearance of impropriety.

We should approach this situation very cautiously, as we don't want to set a precedent that supreme-court nominations can be sabotaged just by finding some kook to make a false allegation of decades-old misconduct, but let's take what we know.

She apparently told her husband a long time ago that she was physically abused. In 2012, additional details were discussed with a psychiatrist.

1) It seems unlikely that her, her husband, and her psychiatrist are engaged in a conspiracy to lie, so I'm inclined to believe something happened.

2) It is possible she was abused by someone else but is twisting the story to implicate Kavanaugh. However, since his name was brought up in the 2012 therapy session, that would have required her to be predict that a republican would be president, that there would be a SC opening during said presidency, and that Kavanaugh would be the person appointed and to be so afraid of that outcome that she would put into motion a plan to stop that from happening "just in case." Why would she hate/fear Kavanaugh that much back in 2012 if he hadn't attempted to rape her?

Now let's look at the other side, is there some explanation as to why Kavanaugh wouldn't remember this event but she did?

1) Kavanaugh could have blacked-out from alcohol that night.

2) Kavanaugh and his buddy considered what they were doing as goofing around - the girl was never in danger raped, and since they knew they weren't actually trying to rape her, it wasn't a significant memory to stick in their minds. Essentially, Kavanaugh doesn't remember the event as "that time he sexually assaulted a girl." To him, it could be just one of those times he tried to hook up with some girl at a party.

Both of the above are plausible reasons Kavanaugh wouldn't remember the event and don't require him to be lying in an attempt to cover-up a past crime.

There is another possibility. This could be a case of mistaken identity. It's possible Ford's memory focused on the details and emotion of the event and not the individuals. Thus, it's possible the event happened but Kavanaugh was one of the boys at the event, not one of the boys that assaulted and that her mind decided to set on his name later in life when she ran into his name again as an important federal judge.

All in all, I would say there is certainly enough evidence to meet the threshold of "not a good candidate for supreme court justice," which is absolutely a lower standard than "guilty of a crime."

I think this is a very reasonable post. And let's not remember, Republicans could just appoint another conservative justice instead of him so it's not like you guys are losing out from an ideological perspective. Harriet Miers was withdrawn under Bush because she was a terrible nominee and Samuel Alito was appointed instead and I imagine most conservatives were just fine with that outcome.

Why not just go with someone else without the rape baggage?

 

[Cozarkian]

If Kavanaugh survives this, expect Feinstein to fall under scrutiny, not to mention that the juvenile records of political leaders are now fair game, which I expect the GOP to start exploiting as an attack vector.

Ford asked her not to make it public. Whoever leaked it is a total scumbag that decided to publicize an alleged private wrong, exposing the alleged victim and her family to public scrutiny and political attacks for what that person perceived as a greater good. Meanwhile, the leaker remains safely hidden behind the veil of anonymity that Ford wanted.

The only lashback Feinstein deserves for this is if she gave tacit permission to have the story leaked by a staffer while claiming plausible deniability.

 

[fskimospy]

This hurts the Democrats if under oath, the accusations fall apart, and Kavanaugh still moves forward. Political gambits are only worth it if they work.

If Kavanaugh survives this, expect Feinstein to fall under scrutiny, not to mention that the juvenile records of political leaders are now fair game, which I expect the GOP to start exploiting as an attack vector.

The juvenile records of political leaders are and always were fair game. If there is any current or future political leader who has been credibly accused of rape, murder or other violent felonies like that as a juvenile I want to know about it. We all should!

I am still baffled at your anger at Feinstein for releasing this information and yet almost nothing for the Republicans who were trying to conceal it. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

All in all, I would say there is certainly enough evidence to meet the threshold of "not a good candidate for supreme court justice," which is absolutely a lower standard than "guilty of a crime."

For that and other reasons as well. As far as people falling back on the Constitution they had ought to know their stuff. "Reasonable doubt" applies to criminal trials, which this isn't and that truth is really irrelevant. Any Justice and the President can be impeached and removed and no crime is required. Anyone familiar with our language at the time the Constitution should instantly understand that and further, the Founders discussed this. I'll give a starting point with Ben Franklin and let them learn the facts or ignore them. It is inconsequential to reality.

 

[kinev]

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for locking him behind bars. For a Supreme Court nomination, I think we should avoid a nomination where there is substantial evidence supporting the appearance of impropriety.

We should approach this situation very cautiously, as we don't want to set a precedent that supreme-court nominations can be sabotaged just by finding some kook to make a false allegation of decades-old misconduct, but let's take what we know.

She apparently told her husband a long time ago that she was physically abused. In 2012, additional details were discussed with a psychiatrist.

1) It seems unlikely that her, her husband, and her psychiatrist are engaged in a conspiracy to lie, so I'm inclined to believe something happened.

2) It is possible she was abused by someone else but is twisting the story to implicate Kavanaugh. However, since his name was brought up in the 2012 therapy session, that would have required her to be predict that a republican would be president, that there would be a SC opening during said presidency, and that Kavanaugh would be the person appointed and to be so afraid of that outcome that she would put into motion a plan to stop that from happening "just in case." Why would she hate/fear Kavanaugh that much back in 2012 if he hadn't attempted to rape her?

Now let's look at the other side, is there some explanation as to why Kavanaugh wouldn't remember this event but she did?

1) Kavanaugh could have blacked-out from alcohol that night.

2) Kavanaugh and his buddy considered what they were doing as goofing around - the girl was never in danger raped, and since they knew they weren't actually trying to rape her, it wasn't a significant memory to stick in their minds. Essentially, Kavanaugh doesn't remember the event as "that time he sexually assaulted a girl." To him, it could be just one of those times he tried to hook up with some girl at a party.

Both of the above are plausible reasons Kavanaugh wouldn't remember the event and don't require him to be lying in an attempt to cover-up a past crime.

There is another possibility. This could be a case of mistaken identity. It's possible Ford's memory focused on the details and emotion of the event and not the individuals. Thus, it's possible the event happened but Kavanaugh was one of the boys at the event, not one of the boys that assaulted and that her mind decided to set on his name later in life when she ran into his name again as an important federal judge.

All in all, I would say there is certainly enough evidence to meet the threshold of "not a good candidate for supreme court justice," which is absolutely a lower standard than "guilty of a crime."

It explicitly wasn't brought up.
"Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dec5b6cd2f1d


Does that change your assessment?

 

[Starbuck1975]

The juvenile records of political leaders are and always were fair game. If there is any current or future political leader who has been credibly accused of rape, murder or other violent felonies like that as a juvenile I want to know about it. We all should!

I am still baffled at your anger at Feinstein for releasing this information and yet almost nothing for the Republicans who were trying to conceal it. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

@Cozarkian said it well in post #128. The GOP certainly deserves criticism for holding so many documents as committee confidential, hence the Spartacus moment, but I fail to see how the GOP is responsible for Feinstein fumbling about with this letter.

 

[Jimzz]

It explicitly wasn't brought up.
"Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dec5b6cd2f1d


Does that change your assessment?

Do you know what "notes" mean? Its not a transcript just a set of outlines of what occurred for the therapist to look back on.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do you know what "notes" mean? Its not a transcript just a set of outlines of what occurred for the therapist to look back on.

That would be a valid point if time travel exists so the accused and/or her therapist could go back to 2012 and write them for now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ford asked her not to make it public. Whoever leaked it is a total scumbag that decided to publicize an alleged private wrong, exposing the alleged victim and her family to public scrutiny and political attacks for what that person perceived as a greater good. Meanwhile, the leaker remains safely hidden behind the veil of anonymity that Ford wanted.

The only lashback Feinstein deserves for this is if she gave tacit permission to have the story leaked by a staffer while claiming plausible deniability.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The plot sickens:

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa is trying to arrange separate, follow-up calls with Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford before the vote, but just for aides to top members.

The panel’s ranking Democrat, California’s Dianne Feinstein, is rejecting that plan, saying there’s more that senators don’t know."

As expected Grassley is in double emergency spin control and trying to bury this problem. Feinstein is likely communicating- "Chuck I knew you'd pull this bullshit but now you can't afford to disregard my statement and if you follow through with your nonsense everyone who matters will look too and wonder what else you are going to hide yet again. Go ahead if you think there's nothing, but bet wrong and you are screwed beyond all belief."

 

[Cozarkian]

It explicitly wasn't brought up.
"Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dec5b6cd2f1d


Does that change your assessment?

It moves the needle in favor of Kavanaugh, but not enough to change my ultimate conclusion. The article also mentions that Ford's husband mentioned she used the name Kavanaugh and the other boy - Mark Judge had a book about wild drunken parties in high school that I recall reading had a mention of an "O'Kavanaugh."

It's all circumstantial, but this is a life-time judicial appointment to the highest court and should come with more scrutiny than even general elections. I certainly have more concern about this event than whether Kavanaugh believes Roe v. Wade should be treated with precedential reverence.

 

[Darwin333]

If Kavanaugh gets his seat he better hang on to it and enjoy it for all it's worth because if the Democrats gets the House they can impeach his ass, even if it's just to get even with what McConnell did to Obama.

edit - And what of all of those other guys from both parties that got fired, removed from office, etc. because they were accused of sexually harassing women? So what's good for them is not good for Kavanaugh because of some political agenda that makes Judge Kavanaugh above the law and Judge Roy Moore not so?

The house could vote to impeach him but I don't see any possibility of 2/3 of the Senate voting to uphold it.

I do think these older than dirt accusations are getting out of hand though. In today's retarded politcal age I can easily see accusations being "weaponized". Find someone that knew the person a very long time ago, promise to pay them when the dust settles so no proof of payment while it's in the news, if you really want to ensure it works find two or more willing participants, and Bob's your uncle whoever you wanted to wipe out politically is likely a goner or at the very least extremely tainted.

Now I don't give two flying fucks about this guy because I don't know shit about him or his politics, I have just tuned out of the absurdity, but in general there has to be some sort of statute of limitations on these kinds of accusations. There is absolutely no way of verifying a 3.5-decade old accusation and in this case the only other witness denies it happened. As we have seen with this type of behavior there is usually a pattern of it, all of his peers and even women he knew from the same time period all say that he is/was a stand-up guy. One attempted forcible rape and not even a sexual harassment claim? Not saying that he didn't do it but it doesn't sound like the typical sexual predator.

 

[zzyzxroad]

The plot sickens:

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa is trying to arrange separate, follow-up calls with Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford before the vote, but just for aides to top members.

The panel’s ranking Democrat, California’s Dianne Feinstein, is rejecting that plan, saying there’s more that senators don’t know."

As expected Grassley is in double emergency spin control and trying to bury this problem. Feinstein is likely communicating- "Chuck I knew you'd pull this bullshit but now you can't afford to disregard my statement and if you follow through with your nonsense everyone who matters will look too and wonder what else you are going to hide yet again. Go ahead if you think there's nothing, but bet wrong and you are screwed beyond all belief."

It will be an utter shock if Trump’s pick for SCOTUS turns out to be a horrible person. He’s like a divining rod for the most honest and outstanding individuals.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Have her come before the entire committee and testify under oath.

I admit that I haven't had time to follow this that closely, but has DiFi stated why she waited until the 11th hour to bring this up? Something of this import should've been brought up as soon as Kavanaugh's name was put forth.

The plot sickens:

"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa is trying to arrange separate, follow-up calls with Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford before the vote, but just for aides to top members.

The panel’s ranking Democrat, California’s Dianne Feinstein, is rejecting that plan, saying there’s more that senators don’t know."

As expected Grassley is in double emergency spin control and trying to bury this problem. Feinstein is likely communicating- "Chuck I knew you'd pull this bullshit but now you can't afford to disregard my statement and if you follow through with your nonsense everyone who matters will look too and wonder what else you are going to hide yet again. Go ahead if you think there's nothing, but bet wrong and you are screwed beyond all belief."

 

[Darwin333]

2) It is possible she was abused by someone else but is twisting the story to implicate Kavanaugh. However, since his name was brought up in the 2012 therapy session, that would have required her to be predict that a republican would be president, that there would be a SC opening during said presidency, and that Kavanaugh would be the person appointed and to be so afraid of that outcome that she would put into motion a plan to stop that from happening "just in case." Why would she hate/fear Kavanaugh that much back in 2012 if he hadn't attempted to rape her?

Did she specifically name Kavanaugh to her therapist? I thought she just said that she was assaulted by boys but I have only read what's been posted and haven't gone looking for anything.

 

[Cozarkian]

Did she specifically name Kavanaugh to her therapist? I thought she just said that she was assaulted by boys but I have only read what's been posted and haven't gone looking for anything.

I don't know. The notes from the therapist didn't have the Kavanaugh's name (but the name wouldn't be important information to the therapist). However, the therapy session was the first time the husband learned what happened - and the article says that he remembers his wife saying Kavanaugh's name and mentioning she is worried he might be appointed as a SC justice. That could very well have been a conversation between the two of them after the therapy session was over, but it suggests Kavanaugh's name was brought up back in 2012 to at least the husband.

edit: I realize my original analysis could stand to be clarified on that point, but I don't think it is different enough to change the outcome.

 

[Darwin333]

Have her come before the entire committee and testify under oath.

I admit that I haven't had time to follow this that closely, but has DiFi stated why she waited until the 11th hour to bring this up? Something of this import should've been brought up as soon as Kavanaugh's name was put forth.

I should probably amend my previous statement but will leave it because I was speaking generally as well as about this case but evidently she didn't want to come forward at all. I'm not sure why she sent the letter but it was leaked that it existed which basically forced her to publicly come forward, again something that she never wanted to do.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know. The notes from the therapist didn't have the Kavanaugh's name (but the name wouldn't be important information to the therapist). However, the therapy session was the first time the husband learned what happened - and the article says that he remembers his wife saying Kavanaugh's name and mentioning she is worried he might be appointed as a SC justice. That could very well have been a conversation between the two of them after the therapy session was over, but it suggests Kavanaugh's name was brought up back in 2012 to at least the husband.

edit: I realize my original analysis could stand to be clarified on that point, but I don't think it is different enough to change the outcome.

I can't say that I disagree with your assessment with this being a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

 

[FerrelGeek]

See, that's the part of this that strikes me as odd. It's like standing up in a meeting saying, 'look, I really don't want to start trouble, but... (proceeds to state something that they know will be controversial). If one truly doesn't want to start trouble, one keeps quiet. If she didn't want this to get out, then don't send a letter to a high-ranking Dem senator that you bloody well know will take the letter public.

I should probably amend my previous statement but will leave it because I was speaking generally as well as about this case but evidently she didn't want to come forward at all. I'm not sure why she sent the letter but it was leaked that it existed which basically forced her to publicly come forward, again something that she never wanted to do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I admit that I haven't had time to follow this that closely, but has DiFi stated why she waited until the 11th hour to bring this up?

I didn't see an explicit "this is why", but the reasons are made plain by events. Ford (the accuser) told Feinstein her story but did not want to come forward at the time. Feinstein could have brought forward an accusation which was anonymous and unverifiable without revealing the source. Then two things happened. The existence of the letter was leaked and the letter itself forwarded to the FBI. It was only now that Ford wanted to come out and testify and that lead to where we are now.

 

[kinev]

Do you know what "notes" mean? Its not a transcript just a set of outlines of what occurred for the therapist to look back on.

Yes. But there is no written record of her mentioning him by name back in 2012. Her husband, I think, has come out and said that she said his name to him, but that is not as convincing as if there was a written record of her naming him in 2012.

 

[Atreus21]

Where and when did the alleged assault happen?

 

[FerrelGeek]

I get all that, but I think my point still stands. Ford had to know that DiFi would let this out to stop Kavanaugh's nomination.

I didn't see an explicit "this is why", but the reasons are made plain by events. Ford (the accuser) told Feinstein her story but did not want to come forward at the time. Feinstein could have brought forward an accusation which was anonymous and unverifiable without revealing the source. Then two things happened. The existence of the letter was leaked and the letter itself forwarded to the FBI. It was only now that Ford wanted to come out and testify and that lead to where we are now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I get all that, but I think my point still stands. Ford had to know that DiFi would let this out to stop Kavanaugh's nomination.

Actually it wasn't Feinstein she was worried about and if you think about it, how would Feinstein look in outing a confidential source? The answer is about as desperate as it gets.

Perhaps this will help with the timeline of events and thought processes.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/16/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-allegations-826068