I listened very carefully to Senator Collins as she detailed her excuses for letting Brett Kavanaugh become a Supreme Court Justice. Two aspects of her speech were particularly absurd and kind of appalling. Her claims that Kavanaugh is a moderate akin to Justice Stevens were beyond absurd. The most appalling aspect of her speech was how she dismissed the claims that Kavanaugh sexually abused women in high school and/or college:
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not at the allegations raised by professor Ford, but of the allegations that when he was a teenager Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facility gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That’s such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our a American consciousness. Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.
She believes Dr. Ford but then she went on and on like a defense attorney why she did not believe her when she clearly said it was Kavanaugh. But the real stunner was when she said this:
I do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead more to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard.
I guess “the facts presented” is the key aspect as we know the FBI was not allowed to pursue corroborating evidence, which is why this episode is clearly absurd. But does Senator Collins truly grasp this more likely than not concept? I’m an economist not a lawyer but I have worked with tax attorneys and accountants on the transfer pricing aspects of tax provisions under FIN 48:
Under the Interpretation, absent the existence of a widely understood administrative practice and precedent of the taxing authority, an enterprise cannot recognize a tax benefit in its financial statements unless it concludes that it is more likely than not that the benefit will be sustained on audit by the taxing authority, based solely on the technical merits of the associated tax position. In this evaluation, an enterprise must assume that the position (1) will be examined by a taxing authority that has full knowledge of all relevant information and (2) will be resolved in the court of last resort.
Let’s key in on “full knowledge of all relevant information”. I have seen multinationals trying to convince financial auditors not to impose tax reserves based on some suspect report that key intercompany prices are arm’s length and where material information was not disclosed. In my experience, the financial auditors would refuse to give FIN 48 clearance until this information was disclosed and properly evaluated. It is well known that the latest FBI inquiry literally ran away from material information that may have corroborated Dr. Ford’s testimony. So when Senator Collins raises this More Likely Than Not standard – she should know better given the fact relevant information was not properly explored. Nicole Belle makes a strong case that the Republicans even knew ahead of time that Dr. Ford’s allegations are true:
Don’t Kid Yourself. The GOP KNOWS Kavanaugh Tried To Rape Someone … The FBI notifies the White House of the letter to see if they want follow-up. The White House declines further investigation. But now they know. And now they pass it on to GOP operatives. Early August. So now, Kavanaugh, the FBI, the White House AND GOP operatives all know. BEFORE the hearing even begins. So now the PR campaign goes into overdrive.
Read the entire thing as it explains a lot of the Republican fake anger at Senator Feinstein, which was all a gigantic smoke screen to disguise the fact that the Republican operatives were doing all they could to demean Dr. Ford, pump up Kavanaugh, and evade any real investigation. Senator Collins little More Likely Than Not sort of puts this in the domain of civil litigation rather than criminal charges where the standard is:
preponderance of the evidence – n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended.
Suppose Dr. Ford chooses to file a civil lawsuit against Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. What then? We would have actual discovery if this lawsuit is allowed. Then again I bet Kavanaugh would hire some slime ball lawyers to squash this lawsuit even if they had to take it to the Supreme Court where Justice Kavanaugh could file the fifth vote in favor of his own motion.
Should Ford sue Kavanaugh it would likely be in state court, although Federal court would be possible, and dismissal from the outset would be highly unlikely. Contrary to much current comment, the testimony of the accuser alone is sufficient to get such a case to the jury. Discovery would definitely be allowed.
On the contrary, Kavanaugh should sue Ford for slander and libel since she has ZERO evidence to back up her claim. I detest Kavanaugh’s legal positions, but have NO desire to live in a totalitarian society in which an evidence-less complaint decades beyond the expiration of the statue of limitations can destroy a person’s professional reputation and career. After all, are you SURE there is no one from your past who you angered enough who wouldn’t love a chance to get you fired from your job? I doubt too many of us can say that.
When a complainant or plaintiff can testify to the necessary facts, that is evidence all by itself. Discovery may produce more but more is not necessary for the case to go forward. I don’t know what the statute of limitations in Maryland is for the civil claim but the criminal statute for aggravated sexual assault has not run yet. It would be very foolish for Kavanaugh to sue for slander since that too would open up discovery and allow investigation and development of all that material the Republican senators didn’t want to go near. Truth is a defense and it could beat Kavanaugh.
Karl seems to have fallen for Trump’s blame the accuser stick. I expected Trump last night to also apologize to Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby.
There is this to suggest a part of why Susan voted as she did:
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbangordailynews.com%2F2018%2F09%2F13%2Fbusiness%2Fdefense-bill-with-162m-for-maine-shipyard-upgrades-sent-to-trump-for-signature%2F&h=AT22K-LEgz3Hobj6g_Vh8iFIjPuVqyfHfwEK-cQLFIz0rXQf6QZ67dn85o5gk5XnOxKpJzlD8kZZD4laXVC4auSuK6l04uRdePrVZVJfFsWJpOM1_brX2FVOdHsPnNLWg2Fo-1Y-SPAx13Pgtvc
Daniel:
You are just being negative.
Apparently and for what it is worth, Trump signed (September 21) a military bill for VA funding (choice, homeless, etc), new housing for base families, etc,, and military construction. overseas and domestically. In the bill was $162 million for overhauling Portsmouth Naval Station, (Drydock, crane, and warehouse).
Three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in fiscal year 2019. It also provides an additional $250 million in advanced procurement funding above the Trump administration’s request to build an additional destroyer in fiscal year 2020. I am sure Ms. Collins was exceedingly happy.
Not saying anything is wrong with this.
No, Collins voted for Kavanaugh because she wants to keep her job, not to mention she is by no means a liberal or even a centrist.
All Rep pols are taking this same road, and have been since the 2016 election. Every now and then one of them squeaks a protest, then gets under the umbrella.
“”This Anti-Ted Cruz Ad Probably Won’t Flip Many Votes, But It’s Pretty Funny
“Come on, Ted.”
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, running for reelection after a bruising 2016 presidential bid, has embraced a campaign slogan that could also be used to sell trucks or, I don’t know, asphalt—he’s “Tough as Texas.”
This was a decent, if characteristically overwrought, persona for Cruz to embrace prior to 2016, when he’d gained a reputation as a Senate rebel who spearheaded a shutdown of the federal government. But if there’s a fulcrum on which his career has seesawed, it was two incidents in the spring of 2016, as the senator tried to catch up to Donald Trump in the GOP delegate count. First, Trump promised to “spill the beans” on Cruz’s wife, Heidi, then retweeted an unflattering photo of her. Then Trump suggested that Cruz’s dad, Rafael, who is Cuban American, was involved in the plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Cruz ultimately responded, as one does, by campaigning for Trump, by bringing his daughters to the White House for a photo op, and finally, by welcoming Trump and the first family to Texas to help him fend off Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke in this year’s Senate race.”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/this-anti-ted-cruz-ad-probably-wont-flip-many-votes-but-its-pretty-funny/
The sad part is it shows, as much as the Kavanaugh vote, what the GOP is. All of it. There are no exceptions at all.
Collins poses as an independent but votes with the Republican establishment very reliably, often after public agonizing over an issue.
Ford’s accusation I think Is as far advanced as it will get absent a complaint to Maryland law enforcement officials. I can see that the questions around this could have been plenty not to vote to confirm, but that’s over now. This is no longer a “job interview” situation. Kavanaugh and Judge are innocent until proven guilty and Ford so far has not accused them where it really matters to change that. Not Ramirez either. Swetnick the same.
The civil suit is interesting, yet complicated since Ford seems to point to a time when Kavanaugh was an unemancipated minor. Suits against minors are much harder to pursue per my attorney brorther-in-law and waiting until they are adults doesn’t change that. Most typically the minor would be criminally convicted and then his parents would be sued.
In Illinois, minors above the age of 6 are liable for their torts, intentional as in sexual assault or negligent as in riding someone down with their bicycle. There are, however, statutes of limitation which are extended to some extent when the plaintiff is a minor as was Christine Ford.
In the linked Nicole Bell article she indicates that Feinstein gave the Ford letter to the FBI by early August, but I find many articles that say it was given to the FBI on the evening of September 12. Bell said she was too out of patience to provide links. Anyone know anything about an August letter transmittal? Bell’s article makes a quite a bit of sense if it was early August and not much at all if it was September 12.
Since it’s apparent that the Republicans knew about these accusations and could have investigated them long before even the nomination, would it be possible perhaps for her to take a civil suit against the Republican party? For obstruction of justice, if nothing else.
Noni:
Do I know you?
Noni, it is not apparent that Republicans knew anything about Ford prior to mid-September, unless you think Feinstein gave it to them on a very hush-hush basis. Bell’s claim that the FBI and then White House had this in early August seems unsupported….I find nothing and asked right here yesterday without anyone pointing to support for Bell. Feinstein and the FBI both say September 12 per numerous reports. Kavanaugh knew that Ramirez was calling around to former Yale classmates, but it is not possible to know about something before it happens and that includes allegations. There was no public allegation until September 23 and prior to that all I read is that possibly 4 Democratic senators had something from Ramirez….no Republicans. He got asked about the allegation, not about Ramirez contacting classmates.
All 3 accusers worked with Democrats and/or the press to the exclusion of submitting things formally to the full committee. The obstruction of justice is a strange idea because none of these accusers has yet contacted any law enforcement agencies so far as we know and Senate Democrats publicly indicated that these matters should not be considered under criminal law assumptions as it was not a legal matter but akin to a job interview.
“…Noni, it is not apparent that Republicans knew anything about Ford prior to mid-September…”
Except, they could have known it from Kavanaugh. If he’d provided a list of possible “hot spots” from his life that might emerge during his confirmation, the GOP could have prepped strategies to meet them.
There seems to be evidence that something like this actually took place.
PS. who would supply evidence to the full committee, if they had already seen Devin Nuñes in action?
Run75441 asked: Noni:
Do I know you?
Hi Run, yes, I used to hang around AB all the time, not as much recently.
Noni:
Of course I know you. I was giving you a hard time.