Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, Nancy Pelosi just did a FOIA request re: FBI investigative files. I'm not sure how much she'll get, but she feels similarly.

Also, what's to stop the FBI from continuing to investigate a now sitting justice if credible evidence were to surface?

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

The investigation was a cynical fraud. Look at all of the months and manpower expended for Whitewater compared to this. Partisan horsecock, pure and simple.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm trying to find a leaked copy. If anyone has it and has read it I'd be super interested in doing so, too.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Well, Nancy Pelosi just did a FOIA request re: FBI investigative files. I'm not sure how much she'll get, but she feels similarly.

Also, what's to stop the FBI from continuing to investigate a now sitting justice if credible evidence were to surface?

- Doc

It was a limited background investigation. It's done. Congress has extensive authority to investigate the matter themselves, but Republicans control that and Republicans now believe in limitless fishing expeditions against their political enemies and immunity for themselves. It's probably yet another example of something Congress will investigate if Democrats win control of the House in November. That's one of the risks with confirming Kavanaugh anyway, as there's plenty of reason to think his appointment could look even worse as more information comes out.

Democrats have about a 75% chance of taking the House according to 538 and other forecasters. I'm super-pessimistic anyway, so I've just assumed that's the end of it and will be mildly surprised if it is not. Journalists are going to keep trying to dig up what they can for a bit and we're still getting a trickle of information.

[_cinepro]

You're basically proving the point that this wasn't a real investigation. Why say we're going to investigate this for a whole week if what they're really saying is we're just going to go talk to the same exact people who have already told us what we want to hear?

And my how easily you skipped over Ramirez's accusations. The FBI interviewed her, but none of the people she named.

It was my recollection that Flake only requested that Ford's claims be investigated, and that was the scope. I thought Ramirez's and Swetnik's claims weren't part of the investigation.

As for the quality of the Ford investigation, there are those who feel that if she names three people as corroborating witnesses for the "gathering" as having happened, and those three say they can't recall such a gathering, it severely diminishes her claims. I agree.

I'm not saying something didn't happen to Ford. I'm just not confident it was Kavanaugh who was involved.

[_honorentheos]

As for the quality of the Ford investigation, there are those who feel that if she names three people as corroborating witnesses for the "gathering" as having happened, and those three say they can't recall such a gathering, it severely diminishes her claims. I agree.

I'm not saying something didn't happen to Ford. I'm just not confident it was Kavanaugh who was involved.

It's not popular to say among those with whom I generally share common political cause, but I tend to agree. It's difficult to say that the background review that interviewed the one other person who was supposedly in the room as well as the person who took her to the location where it occurred and is friendly to Ford was a sham. I can't speak to any facts, the content of those interviews, or where there may have been legitimate additional lines of investigation that were overlooked or neglected. Judge and P.J. could have lied. Leland could have severe memory issues. But because those three interviews weigh so heavily and were carried out it makes it difficult to say the investigation was merely a smoke screen. I don't know. I think the facts are too opaque, the emotional investment and accusations so potent that it leaves very little that could be fairly determined one way or the other while forcing a conclusion is very fraught. We're left with our preconceptions and impressions of the parties involved, and little else.

[_EAllusion]

I'm not saying something didn't happen to Ford. I'm just not confident it was Kavanaugh who was involved.

When it was possible that Ford didn't know Kavanaugh well enough to identify him, this was possible. Now that we have more detail, this is quite unlikely. She's not claiming a random attack. Not knowing who your attacker was in cases of intimate violence from a familiar person isn't a thing except in cases of false memory that do not fit this story.

It seems like people sticking to this don't want to be seen besmirching Ford while saying they don't believe her. It appears to be a cop out. But really, it's down her being a liar or it happening. You can withhold judgement, but of you say it didn't happen, you're saying she's a liar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... ssion=true

[_honorentheos]

I'm not saying something didn't happen to Ford. I'm just not confident it was Kavanaugh who was involved.

When it was possible that Ford didn't know Kavanaugh well enough to identify him, this was possible. Now that we have more detail, this is quite unlikely. She's not claiming a random attack. Not knowing who your attacker was in cases of intimate violence from a familiar person isn't a thing except in cases of false memory that do not fit this story.

It seems like people sticking to this don't want to be seen besmirching Ford while saying they don't believe her. It appears to be a cop out. But really, it's down her being a liar or it happening.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... ssion=true

I don't agree, EA. Other than Ford's testimony what confirming evidence is there that she knew him before the attempted assault took place? I agree that within the context of her testimony there is only this binary choice. But without confirmation from some other source that she and Kavanaugh knew one another I personally can't rule out the possibility she assigned Kavanaugh to the assault after it occurred through some other means than knowing the person assaulting her. Kavanaugh denies knowing her except possibly in passing at some point in their high school careers. Judge did not confirm the would have known each other, nor did the others whose identities are known in Ford's testimony.

It's not that cut and dry. It's abusing the evidence to make such a definitive claim, in my opinion.

[_EAllusion]

Ford testified to knowing Kavanaugh as a friend of someone she was dating. "Squi" as it turns out. She said she had previously met him. Kavanaugh backed off having not met her before through his attorney as it was realistic he could have had a aquiantence meeting. If he was a total stanger at a party, she could be mistaken. If she knew him as she claims, then there's almost no chance she would misidentify him. That's not how memory works.

It could be possible she had a false memory implanted, but she specifically refutes "recovered memory" saying she has an unbroken chain of remembering the attack. She's probably either lying or not. If you want to add an epicycle of lying and suppose she's misleading about her knowledge of Kavanaugh, that's fine, but then she's still lying.

[_honorentheos]

Ford testified to knowing Kavanaugh as a friend of someone she was dating. "Squi" as it turns out. She said she had previously met him. Kavanaugh backed off having not met her before through his attorney as it was realistic he could have had a aquiantence meeting. If he was a total stanger at a party, she could be mistaken. If she knew him as she claims, then there's almost no chance she would misidentify him. That's not how memory works.

I agree, but only up to the point that all of the confirming evidence comes out of her testimony. I even pointed out the relationship with Squi being someone she went out with previously on the board. But, and this is meaningful to me anyway, at every point where that could be confirmed by another party it didn't happen. I don't think that invalidates her testimony as some do. But it doesn't make it an ironclad source from which one can form firm conclusions.

It's simply not satisfying but reality that we don't know much for sure. That's not how facts work.

ETA: The false memory angle is a non-starter no matter which side one approaches it from. The limiting issue here is the evidence only comes from her personal statements.