Report: Kavanaugh won’t commit to recusal from Trump/Mueller related matters

[DistrictDeacon]

since we have not heard from the accuser and she has yet to produce evidence to support her accusation, at this point no

let's let both accuser and accused have their say before we decide anything

Should we also be able to hear from the others that said to be involved? Or do their words not matter?

 

[RChildress107]

Exactly why DiFi held the allegations back.

I’d like to think she, and democrats in general, are politically savvy enough to make that kind of move. I doubt it though.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I see. So what about the leak just before the vote was supposed to occur? What is that called?

From the original article from the Intercept, it doesn't sound like Feinstein is the leak (but it does sound like at least some Dems are sources):

"DEMOCRATS ON THE Senate Judiciary Committee have privately requested to view a Brett Kavanaugh-related document in possession of the panel’s top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, but the senior California senator has so far refused, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation."

The original article actually comes across as criticizing Feinstein for not sharing the letter.

 

[RJKarl]

I see. So what about the leak just before the vote was supposed to occur? What is that called?

It wasn't leaked. Leaking would have been against her will. She gave permission before it was made public.

 

[dartsndeacs]

It will be interesting to see what she looks like on Thursday. If she's hot, it will be believable, but if she hasn't aged well then nothing will come of it.

 

[Les Grossman]

In law, as a general matter, the person raising an accusation bears the burden of proving it. There are good and obvious reasons for that. I recognize that an advice and consent hearing isn’t a criminal or civil trial, but the same principle that undergirds that general rule should apply here, as it does throughout the law. I would have thought we’d learned from Duke Lax, UVA Rolling Stone, etc. that there is nothing about #metoo that alters that analysis.

To what standard? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Preponderance of the evidence? Reasonable suspicion?

Duke Lax is a false equivalency. I am a big believer in the criminal justice system and the standard the government must be held to in every case. Along with the fact that one must look at all the evidence between determining guilt.

However, I do not think those principles should be applied to our appointment process. It is far more subjective. Especially when that appointment is for the USSC. I have no issue with their entire life being vetted like someone who runs for President. It’s a lifetime appointment and they possess far too much power. Then, our senate can vote up or down as they see fit.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Um, how would people know about the letter if it’s existence wasn’t leaked?

"it doesn't sound like Feinstein is the leak."

 

[sailordeac]

Should we also be able to hear from the others that said to be involved? Or do their words not matter?

don't know to whom you are referring, but it's possible that others should be heard

 

[PhDeac]

Ford made it public in response to leak.

Junebug, you seem to be stuck on this idea that Feinstein was the only person to know about the letter and that’s just not true.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

According to whom?

Other Democratic Senators who couldn't get the letter from her.

 

[RChildress107]

In law, as a general matter, the person raising an accusation bears the burden of proving it. There are good and obvious reasons for that. I recognize that an advice and consent hearing isn’t a criminal or civil trial, but the same principle that undergirds that general rule should apply here, as it does throughout the law. I would have thought we’d learned from Duke Lax, UVA Rolling Stone, etc. that there is nothing about #metoo that alters that analysis.

In employment application, as a general matter, the person applying for the job bears the burden of proving they are qualified.

But we’ll keep this post in mind if this ever becomes a legal matter.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

According to whom?

....the original article that brought this entire thing into the public light that I just posted and provided a paragraph from.

The article's title is "DIANNE FEINSTEIN WITHHOLDING BRETT KAVANAUGH DOCUMENT FROM FELLOW JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS"

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Clearly a leak existed because The Intercept wrote an article on it based on democratic sources. It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, but I don't believe Feinstein was the leak based upon the way the article is framed.

 

[thatguy2016]

Junebug, you seem to be stuck on this idea that Feinstein was the only person to know about the letter and that’s just not true.

right, because Feinstein ignored the request for confidentiality and shared the letter

 

[DeaconSig]

I see no reason to depart from the preponderance standard that is applicable in almost all civil proceedings. Beyond a reasonable doubt and reasonable suspicion are criminal concepts that are ill-suited to a proceeding of this nature.

Except for the fact that, you know, there is no such standard. All that matters, ultimately, is what 50 senators choose to be their standard in voting for Judge Kavanaugh. And that standard is pretty clearly going to be "whatever President Trump wants."

 

[PhDeac]

right, because Feinstein ignored the request for confidentiality and shared the letter

That presumes Ford handed Feinstein the letter personally and the two of them were the only people who knew about it. We know that’s not true.

 

[RChildress107]

I see no reason to depart from the preponderance standard that is applicable in almost all civil proceedings. Beyond a reasonable doubt and reasonable suspicion are criminal concepts that are ill-suited to a proceeding of this nature.

Not even the fact that this isn’t a civil proceeding? Or even remotely similar to a civil proceeding?

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Ford sent a letter to her House Rep (Anna Eshoo) who then sent the letter to Feinstein as she's the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

 

[sailordeac]

In employment application, as a general matter, the person applying for the job bears the burden of proving they are qualified.

But we’ll keep this post in mind if this ever becomes a legal matter.

he is qualified and has a lifetime of achievement to prove it, he's undergone a number of investigations and submitted to extensive questioning under oath, then someone started a nasty rumor about him without appearing publicly or providing supporting evidence, and therefore some say he's all of a sudden not qualified, seems fair and reasonable

the women who know Kavanaugh most extensively support him and yet the party that claims to support women and listens to women opposes him and chooses to ignore the voices of these women

looks like for the dims the only credible woman is one who agrees with them

 

[Wakeforest22890]

She's going to testify in front of the Senate. Your ongoing characterization that she is refusing to publicly answer questions and/or tell her story is wrong.