Will the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh assaulting Ford be public record?

We might, we might not.
I don’t know why they would/wouldn’t. doesn’t seem important either way. It’s already been done. Can’t imagine they’d find anything new.

You mean Kavanaugh ALLEGEDLY assaulting Ford? Maybe. Both parties have the right to SOME privacy…

^^Yes, allegedly. I’m not trying to convict him, I’m only curious if we will get to see some sort of transcript.

We were able to be witness to all the questioning the other day.

Maybe if they find something very damning on Kavanaugh it will just cause Kavanaugh to bow out and nothing gets released? I have no idea.

My guess is there will be plenty of info regarding Kavanaugh drinking and being at parties. I have my doubts anyone will be able to actually completely corroborate Ford’s story. I’m just guessing from what has been said in the news already. I have no real idea obviously what the investigation will show up. No one does.

I think the only thing that may show anything will be polygraphs for both individuals. Then it will be up to whoever to make up their minds about how they feel about it, and make a decision.

@kritiper She had a polygraph already. I realize the FBI might want to do their own, but I really doubt hers will be different results from the one done already.

This is a case of “He said, she said” which hopefully would get closure and satisfactory results because the FBI said.

@mazingerz88 My prediction is nothing really gets resolved, but it’s worth a try. If the FBI doesn’t find any corroborating evidence for the attack the people who believe Ford 100% will still believe her.

Even if the FBI found it’s impossible for it to have happened, I think a bunch of people, including Ford, will still believe it happened.

I think a lot of republicans will never believe it happened even with evidence.

I don’t believe he did it.
If he did, I hope they find out.
I think there is no way the FBI could shuffle their findings to obscurity; not in this case.

@mazingerz88 Isn’t it more a case of “She said, he said, she took a polygraph, people threatened her life, four other women said, and he’s still acting like the victim”?

@Zaku Yes, but reality is whatever case it is, for all if not most of the country to be able to move on…

( and we must move on eventually taking away that we all at least learned something useful from all of this that would inform decisions we would have to make later, mid-term voting etc. )

….asking a supposedly non-partisan entity like the FBI to end this debacle and accept their conclusions is necessary.

If it isn’t public record, you can bet it will be leaked by somebody.

@JLeslie Okay. So when he gets a polygraph the people responsible can make up their minds as to what it all means and what they want to do about it.
And I never meant to imply that she (or either one, really) was not telling the truth. Because without both being treated, tested, and considered equally, they, the considerer’s, have nothing.

@kritiper Dud he agree to a polygraph? I haven’t heard anything specifically about it, but I haven’t been paying much attention the past couple of days, because right now it seems to be the same thing being said over and over again in the media.

@JLeslie Unknown at this time. It depends, I suppose, if the FBI or some other agency requests it. I’m sure it will be all over the news, just like everything else.

@JLeslie I’m not sure saying he would agree to what ever the committee requested is the same thing as agreeing, since it seems the only ones who can make him take a polygraph is the republicans. He could willingly go in and take a polygraph but he won’t.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/28/us/politics/ap-us-supreme-court-kavanaugh-polygraphs.html

@Pandora Thanks. I think nothing is going to change in a week regarding the assault accusation, but I do think there might be a lot of people who can corroborate he lied about something.

I believe he drank like a fish and did some stupid, mean, or angry things. I don’t care at all if he put alcohol in the punch, that’s the point of the punch. I do care if he slipped drugs into it. I find it doubtful he put drugs in the punch, but not surprising at all if he brought drugs with him to parties.

Flake said he thinks if it’s found Kavanaugh lied that Kavanaugg will be out. I don’t think that’s becessarily true.

^^Flake is going to vote for Kavanaugh. There are plenty of times he lied to the Senate. Devild triangle is not a drinking game. Boofing is not farting. Now some will say that it’s no big deal to give little lies. Then there is his outward rant about how this is the liberals and democrats are out to get him. A justice is not suppose to be sooo bias. I mean, we know they all have their biases but his covers half of the nation. I can be bias against republicans because I don’t own a business and there is no way I can hurt anyone who is a republican except for at the polls. I won’t make decisions that will cover the legality of issues important to a whole nation for the next 30 to 40 years. Kavanaugh has proven that there is a good chance that he will go against common sense even or fairness to avenge the wrong he felt he was receiving from the liberals. He also showed that he doesn’t have the temperment either. I believe even the republicans don’t want him but they are going to vote him in because they think this is their last shot because they will lose in 2018. I wish they would wake up and see that the last thing Dems want to be accused of is being just like them.

@Pandora I accuse Democrats of it a lot the last 4 years. The Dems took a page from the republicans. You get what you give, and the republicans have been dishing it out for years.

Very depressing.

I don’t think Ford was acting as a “Democrat” though. I do think the Democrats did likely orchestrate how this has gone down, or it was leaked by an average person trying to help the Democrats.

@pandora let’s consider this for a moment…the burden of proof is not on him. If someone makes an accusation against you, whether it is a private citizen or the police, the burden of proof is on that person…not on you. You don’t have to say a word other than, I didn’t do it. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Except in smear jobs.

”Except in smear jobs”

Which is exactly what this is with Kavanaugh

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

FBI Investigation in North Carolina of Kavanaugh at Yale

@chyna you believe people should be guilty until they prove their innocence?

@Tropical_Willie that article proves…well…nothing. it is just another allegation that may or may not have any bearing on anything. Here’s a thought…if you are going to give something as a citation, you might want to make sure it is something more than innuendo and allegation. If you can tell the difference between innuendo, allegation, and fact, that is.

@seawulf575 This was a job interview. One where the person is pretty much required to be pretty perfect. Would you want someone who was accused of attempted rape of a child from long ago to be your kids baby sitter. Probably not. If you wouldn’t hire this person to be a sitter then why would you consider them for a job that requires them to not only enforce the laws of this land but to also rule on what those laws should be. But whether you believe ms. ford or not, he was very clear when he said, what goes around comes around. Ms Ford pursued this. She was the one that felt wrong and rightly so the Democrats followed up on her allegations. Which may never have happened if the Republicans were willing to let them review his past cases. Other justices have had up to 100 percent of their cases reviewed. Why did dems only get to see 7 percent just two days before they wanted a vote. Also why the rush? They went a whole year with 8 Justices. So why the hurry? Also back in July, right from the beginning, Republicans put it out there that they would confirm him no matter what. They were not even trying to look like they were going to follow normal procedure. They were abdicating their responsibility. They figured they had the majority vote and didn’t need the democrats. It was fixed from the beginning.

@Pandora you are looking through liberal colored glasses. Let’s take it apart:
This was a job interview. So if you went into a job interview and the interviewers started a smear campaign against you, you wouldn’t get upset with them? I certainly would. Especially if their actions endangered your life as well as the lives of your spouse and children. I think anger is an appropriate reaction.
He is accused of attempted rape. That is where liberals always fall flat. Whether you believe Ms Ford or not, she only made an unsubstantiated allegation. I could claim you raped children 30 years ago. Does that make it true? Especially if I couldn’t really produce a single verifiable fact nor find a single corroborating witness including my friends? So, if I made an accusation like that, does that mean that you shouldn’t be allowed to get a job? Does that mean that you are a pariah with no hope of redemption? Because that is what you are saying.
You say the Dems rightly so followed up on her allegations. They turned it into a 3 ring circus in an effort to smear Kavanaugh. Let’s start with an assumption: Let’s assume that Ford wasn’t in on the game from the start…that she actually believes her story. If that is so, she went to Feinstein on the side, telling her that she didn’t want this to go public. Feinstein could have gone to the Judiciary Committee in private when she got this allegation, raised this concern, and then they could have launched whatever sort of investigation they felt would be best. It could have been done in the background, helping to retain Ford’s anonymity. It could have gotten a much better result than what it did. Better, if investigating the allegation was the driver. It wasn’t. It was a political ploy to smear Kavanaugh and delay his confirmation until after the midterm elections. Plain and simple.
You state the Republicans weren’t willing to review his past cases. Yet for some reason you miss that more information was reviewed on Kavanaugh than the last 5 SCOTUS confirmed nominees…combined. Almost twice as much in fact. You claim that other justices have had up to 100% of their cases reviewed…I need to see a citation on that one. I tried looking and couldn’t find a thing.
You went on for the argument of “what’s the rush?”. There is a vacancy and the president made a nomination. There is no valid reason to not go through the process. I know…Garland. If you have followed my comments about that at all, I don’t think the Repubs handled that well at all. They could just as easily have gone through the confirmation process and voted against him. It would have been cleaner.
You argue that the Repubs have stated from the start that they were going to confirm him, no matter what. Are you also forgetting that the Dems stated from the start that they would not vote to confirm him, no matter what? And they were following procedure. Here’s a question: do you know what is actually required for a SCOTUS confirmation? The answer is easier than you think. The POTUS nominates, the Senate confirms or rejects. Period. No hearings are actually required. The Justice nominee is not required to testify on his own behalf. It doesn’t even have to be a public discussion. So while you are spouting off about procedure, you might want to know what that really is.
As for them figuring they had the majority and didn’t need the Democrats…wasn’t that the standard created by the Dems under Obama? Harry Reid and his Nuclear Option? ACA being passed without a single Repub vote? Kavanaugh was right…what goes around comes around. The Dems set that rule in the game, they just don’t like it when it is used against them.

Then why wasn’t Garland voted on ? ? ?

Oh GOP Congress was running the country not the President DUH !

@Tropical_Willie you are a sad little thing, aren’t you? Please go back and read my answer. I stated I felt the Repubs handled it badly. But I know…you feel you have to pick at something and the only thing you could apparently pick at is what I already hit. Pitiful.

^pot calling kettle black

The mantra in your household is; if it isn’t hurting the poor, women, LGBT and brown skinned people it can’t be any good.

Or “I’m so ultra conservative I think the Nazis are Leftists.”

@chyna Ahh….jumping in. I notice you don’t ask specific questions that are directed to you but have no problem sniping. Good job! Your liberal masters are proud of you!

@seawulf575 Let’s just say you’re right and in this special circumstance it’s understandable he became defensive. It still doesn’t explain his inability to answer sometimes, that he stalled on some questions. He was not forthright in his answers. He is not inexperienced at being questioned like this. When I had to give a deposition my first time, I didn’t know what it would be like, which made me a little nervous, but I was instructed to just tell the truth. Telling the truth in that situation sometimes comes with forming sentences more carefully than in normal conversation, but it usually doesn’t come with anger. You just tell your story.

Kavanaugh is a Judge and lawyer, he has seen people be “interviewed” by lawyers, he has seen senate hearings, he was able to practice and anticipate what would be asked and prepare answers.

My question to you is, let’s say Kavanaugh did exactly what Ford said, do you think doing that at 17 should mean he can’t be a Supreme Court Justice 35 years later?

@JLeslie I will be honest, I had to work and couldn’t watch the entire thing. I caught part of it and then have seen more snippets along the way. But I can think of a number of reasons for not jumping right out and answering questions and choosing your words carefully. Not the least of which is that the Dems were just looking for anything to use against him. One misspoken word and they would have jumped on him. So hesitating and choosing words would be one thing I would expect. One other reasons is that with his anger, he needed to take time to compose himself and/or choose his words and tone. When you claim he was not forthright in his answers, that isn’t exactly true either. If he weren’t that would/could be construed as perjury and would have been highlighted already. So statements like that are your opinion, not fact.
Another thing that everyone forgets is that confirmation hearings are not required by process. The nominee is not required to testify for himself. The actual process is designed to take the public out of the decision making. The president nominates someone, the Senate votes on him/her. That is what is required. When you get the public involved, you get what we are currently going through with one party or the other playing “court of popular opinion” games.
As for your hypothetical: If a person did something 35 years ago as a minor, should it bar them from being on the SCOTUS? I would say it shouldn’t automatically dismiss him. It becomes a situational thing. If he had, in a drunken stint groped some girl, that isn’t okay. But was it characteristic of his bearing? Yes or No. Has he repeated it throughout his life? Yes or No. Was it something he purposely tried hiding? Yes or No. When you start trying to decide when someone’s past should bar them from some job in the future, you start walking on a very slippery slope. And besides…it didn’t stop a guy from becoming POTUS for two terms (Clinton).

@seawulf575 Quite honestly, I think that the most important thing, that most people don’t care if he did what Firdcsays he did. I don’t mean they don’t care about her, I mean, if he did it, it’s so long ago they don’t consider it material. All the rest of the fighting is a waste of time if that’s true.

It us hypocritical though. If the evangelicals had such a moral problem with Clinton, they should with Trump and Kavanaugh. Are we as a society going to stop with the self righteous family values Christian schtick or not? My guess is the Evangelical politicians come out in full force in a couple of years trying to differentiate themselves from Trump. It will be a tough decision for them, we’ll see.

@JLeslie And the reverse also applies. If the liberals have such a moral hard spot with Trump and Kavanaugh, they ought to at least admit the outrage against Clinton. It doesn’t happen. Excuses are made and dodges are taken…anything to keep from actually facing it. And that is my point, often. With Clinton, I personally don’t care if he was banging interns in the oval office. I don’t care if he was having extra-marital affairs. That is his business. I think it does show he doesn’t respect his wife or his marriage, which is exactly what I have said about Trump. But Clinton also has multiple accusations of inappropriate touching and rape. Kavanaugh had one woman come forward saying he attacked her and everyone on the left thinks he should be guilty until proven innocent. They all scream for investigations. Yet as soon as you mention Clinton and ask why they aren’t outraged or calling for investigations, they accuse you of deflection or call you names. They don’t react on behalf of the women as they want me to do.
The same goes for Trump. Remember the big story of Trump riding on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane? He was suddenly a child molester and all sorts of things. He rode on it once. Bill Clinton was a regular with 20 or 30 trips on it as well as many visits to Epstein’s private playground. And yet not a peep from the left, except personal attacks on whomever brings it up. The hypocrisy is endless.
I am one of the very few on here that will support Trump on a professional level, yet call out his true faults. I think a lot of the “faults” everyone finds with Trump are overblown nothings. He exaggerates some meaningless nothing and the media goes crazy calling him a liar. The folks on here do the same. But often it really is nothing. Every politician, no…make that every HUMAN lies. If we care to be brutally honest we probably lie about something many times in a day. Whether it is a small lie (like an exaggeration) or a big lie (cheating on a spouse) or anything in between…we all lie. If you had an army of reporters and frantic ideologues following you around every day and blowing any little thing out of proportion, you would look like a horrible person that lies all the time.

^^I didn’t care much about the infidelity with Clinton and I don’t with Trump. Kavanaugh is a little different because I believe him to have been an aggressive drunk and I have little tolerance for men being aggressive in drunken party situations. I think probably Trump has done some grabbing too, but I do believe he is never drunk. Clinton I don’t think grabbed anybody, but I do think he maybe used his position in power. Not so much with Monica, but some other woman.

I don’t think Clinton lied about having sex with Monica, because if someone asks me if I had sex with someone I think the act that can make a baby. Did he cheat on his wife—absolutely. Just a kiss is a cheat, just spending time with someone else that takes your focus from your spouse is a cheat. That’s his wife’s problem, not mine.

Exactly. Do I respect Trump for having an affair with Stormy Daniels? Nope. Do I think he was an idiot for cheating on Melania? Sure. But again…that was all consensual. No crime other than morally against his marriage. I felt the same way about Clinton. Monica was a willing participant. I do find the allegations against him for rape and sexual assault to be a bit disconcerting and find that lack of outrage for them by the left to be hypocritical.
I think you and I are going to continue to disagree on Kavanaugh, though. Could he have been an aggressive drunk? Sure. I don’t feel there is evidence to support that however. I refuse to convict him even in my mind on the weight of the evidence produced so far. And the more time that goes on and the more that comes to light, the less I believe Dr. Ford. I think she contrived the whole thing as part of a concentrated effort to smear Kavanaugh. Too many things coming out about her that contradict her “credible” testimony. The letter (sworn testimony) from her former boyfriend/lover/room mate was particularly damning. It poked holes in many of her statements. He stated that she never had a fear of flying or enclosed spaces or spaces with limited means of egress. He stated that he was present when she was helping a friend learn how to beat a polygraph test…how they work and what they look for and what you can do about them. Yet she claimed to know nothing about them under oath. He stated that at no time, in 6 years (back in the 90’s) did she ever mention any sexual assault in her past. That seems particularly odd since she claims it screwed her up for all of her adult life. You think something that traumatic would come sometimes in the 6 years they lived together.
Does Kavanaugh drink? Sure. He said so. He likes beer. I like beer too. I might have a beer or two several times a week. Yet in 17 years of marriage, my wife has seen me “drunk” exactly twice and one of those times was on a booze-cruise in the Bahamas. Liking beer and drinking it does not equate to being a drunk to me. So I think we will continue to disagree on branding Kavanaugh.

Not mentioning sexual assault doesn’t mean the person was never assaulted. That people need to get through their head. Especially, parents who still have children in their home.

All these people on Facebook and talking among friends saying that how Ford described the incident proves it’s probably false, because she doesn’t remember how she got to the party, or whose house it was, that all sounds perfectly normal to me. Why is a girl who was raped going to tell their parent when they are attacked if they know their parent isn’t going to believe them? And, the silence will continue.

I’m not saying Ford might not have a confused or false memory, I’m only saying the way she talks about being assaulted and the details around it sound absolutely normal and usual. Actually, just what she remembered in terms of being at someone else’s house sounds totally normal, let alone the assault.

Exactly. Do I respect Trump for having an affair with Stormy Daniels? Nope. Do I think he was an idiot for cheating on Melania? Sure. But again…that was all consensual. No crime other than morally against his marriage. I felt the same way about Clinton. Monica was a willing participant. I do find the allegations against him for rape and sexual assault to be a bit disconcerting and find that lack of outrage for them by the left to be hypocritical.
@seawulf575 I have wondered how Trump supporters felt about his shenanigans. Thank you for being honest. My friends that are Trump supporters dismiss these actions out of hand.

@chyna despite the fact that I don’t go Trump bashing, i’m really not a Trump supporter. I base my decisions on him by my own code of decision making….just like everyone else. I have stated before and still do…I am a registered independent. I have voted for both Dems and Repubs. I have stated many times things that Trump does that I feel are foolish or childish and have questioned some of his policies. I just can’t get to the point that every little thing he does or says is somehow going to lead to the end of the world.

@chyna I think that’s part of the problem with the Democrats harping on Trump being a cheater and womanizer, the Trump voter decided they care about the other things he does, and chose to ignore the womanizing. They chose to ignore it from the getgo so talking about it is a waste of time.

They call his grabbing pussy locker room talk, I think they believe he grabs women when he can, and they don’t see it as him forcing himself in the women.

Dems talk about Stormy Daniels, but the republicans see that she willingly had sex with him, so they don’t care at this point.

He cheated on his wife, they don’t care, because they like that he declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Or, something like that.