Mixing
How did the Kavanaugh confirmation move so quickly despite the serious allegations?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I did not pay attention to the news for a few days and am completely confused now. Last I saw, Kavanaugh was in the midst of his sexual assault hearings. I thought Trump had said he would let a further investigation be done. Fast forward a few days, I check on the news again, and I am seeing headlines about Kavanaugh already being sworn in and hearing cases as a supreme court justice!
I feel like there is a huge piece of news in the middle that is missing, yet I'm trying to Google it and all I find are articles from a few days ago about the sexual assault proceedings, about the FBI doing next to nothing for an investigation, and articles from now about Kavanaugh being sworn in and already sitting in the supreme court.
What are we missing? How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle? Where is the news leading up to a vote? Since the sexual assault allegations investigation sounds like a sham according to all the articles I see (many accusations were ignored), how was this allowed to proceed?
How did we just go from "Republicans would like this done before elections, but there will likely be a drawn-out affair with investigations and such," before the weekend to "Bam, it's all done and over with" after the weekend... what happened in between (or didn't happen that should have)?
Preemptive disclaimer
I am neither for nor against Trump or Kavanaugh, so this is not an "anti Kavanaugh" question, and I would prefer that we try to remain neutral. I don't know if he did or didn't do what he was accused of, and I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton (though I did vote). But I am surprised about what just happened and am floored by the lack of proceedings between "we claim he raped us" and "he's our justice now" and am looking for the missing link.
united-states supreme-court nomination
edited 21 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
asked 1 hour ago
Aaron
1175
New contributor
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 13 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I did not pay attention to the news for a few days and am completely confused now. Last I saw, Kavanaugh was in the midst of his sexual assault hearings. I thought Trump had said he would let a further investigation be done. Fast forward a few days, I check on the news again, and I am seeing headlines about Kavanaugh already being sworn in and hearing cases as a supreme court justice!
I feel like there is a huge piece of news in the middle that is missing, yet I'm trying to Google it and all I find are articles from a few days ago about the sexual assault proceedings, about the FBI doing next to nothing for an investigation, and articles from now about Kavanaugh being sworn in and already sitting in the supreme court.
What are we missing? How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle? Where is the news leading up to a vote? Since the sexual assault allegations investigation sounds like a sham according to all the articles I see (many accusations were ignored), how was this allowed to proceed?
How did we just go from "Republicans would like this done before elections, but there will likely be a drawn-out affair with investigations and such," before the weekend to "Bam, it's all done and over with" after the weekend... what happened in between (or didn't happen that should have)?
Preemptive disclaimer
I am neither for nor against Trump or Kavanaugh, so this is not an "anti Kavanaugh" question, and I would prefer that we try to remain neutral. I don't know if he did or didn't do what he was accused of, and I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton (though I did vote). But I am surprised about what just happened and am floored by the lack of proceedings between "we claim he raped us" and "he's our justice now" and am looking for the missing link.
united-states supreme-court nomination
edited 21 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
asked 1 hour ago
Aaron
1175
New contributor
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Google "Susan Collins Kavanaugh speech," to extend the research of this question.
– Drunk Cynic
1 hour ago
1
Maybe a little more research would have been helpful. The FBI concluded its investigation, confirming that there was no corroborating evidence of any accusation, and the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh on Saturday. The Supreme Court actually began its session last Monday, before Kavanaugh was sworn in, so he's coming right into it with the work already underway.
– Joe
1 hour ago
1
@Joe Actually, it was precisely more research that lead me to believe that the FBI did not confirm that there was no corroborating evidence, which I briefly mentioned in the question. Unless the news is lying, the FBI ignored many claims and witnesses. They may have filed a report which stated "We confirm that..." but you cannot actually say they confirmed anything if they didn't honestly look into it. Are the news articles gross exaggerations? It wouldn't be the first time if they were, but I wasn't going to assume that was the case until I had reason to believe otherwise.
– Aaron
1 hour ago
1
@Aaron - We don't really know what the report said, because it was under extreme lockdown (which may, in fact, be normal, but that doesn't change how restrictive it is). All we know for sure (as far as I know) is that it was convincing enough to enable some of the holdouts to vote for him.
– Bobson
1 hour ago
2
@FrankCedeno You are moving the goalpost; You said the allgations are just guilt by association, and that they only accuse Kavanaugh of standing by and drinking. That's simply not true. Both accusations are about sexual assault or harrassment commited by Kavanaugh. Whether or not you personally think that these are credible accusations doesn't change the nature of the accusations.
– tim
36 mins ago
 |Â
show 13 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I did not pay attention to the news for a few days and am completely confused now. Last I saw, Kavanaugh was in the midst of his sexual assault hearings. I thought Trump had said he would let a further investigation be done. Fast forward a few days, I check on the news again, and I am seeing headlines about Kavanaugh already being sworn in and hearing cases as a supreme court justice!
I feel like there is a huge piece of news in the middle that is missing, yet I'm trying to Google it and all I find are articles from a few days ago about the sexual assault proceedings, about the FBI doing next to nothing for an investigation, and articles from now about Kavanaugh being sworn in and already sitting in the supreme court.
What are we missing? How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle? Where is the news leading up to a vote? Since the sexual assault allegations investigation sounds like a sham according to all the articles I see (many accusations were ignored), how was this allowed to proceed?
How did we just go from "Republicans would like this done before elections, but there will likely be a drawn-out affair with investigations and such," before the weekend to "Bam, it's all done and over with" after the weekend... what happened in between (or didn't happen that should have)?
Preemptive disclaimer
I am neither for nor against Trump or Kavanaugh, so this is not an "anti Kavanaugh" question, and I would prefer that we try to remain neutral. I don't know if he did or didn't do what he was accused of, and I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton (though I did vote). But I am surprised about what just happened and am floored by the lack of proceedings between "we claim he raped us" and "he's our justice now" and am looking for the missing link.
united-states supreme-court nomination
edited 21 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
asked 1 hour ago
Aaron
1175
New contributor
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I did not pay attention to the news for a few days and am completely confused now. Last I saw, Kavanaugh was in the midst of his sexual assault hearings. I thought Trump had said he would let a further investigation be done. Fast forward a few days, I check on the news again, and I am seeing headlines about Kavanaugh already being sworn in and hearing cases as a supreme court justice!
I feel like there is a huge piece of news in the middle that is missing, yet I'm trying to Google it and all I find are articles from a few days ago about the sexual assault proceedings, about the FBI doing next to nothing for an investigation, and articles from now about Kavanaugh being sworn in and already sitting in the supreme court.
What are we missing? How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle? Where is the news leading up to a vote? Since the sexual assault allegations investigation sounds like a sham according to all the articles I see (many accusations were ignored), how was this allowed to proceed?
How did we just go from "Republicans would like this done before elections, but there will likely be a drawn-out affair with investigations and such," before the weekend to "Bam, it's all done and over with" after the weekend... what happened in between (or didn't happen that should have)?
Preemptive disclaimer
I am neither for nor against Trump or Kavanaugh, so this is not an "anti Kavanaugh" question, and I would prefer that we try to remain neutral. I don't know if he did or didn't do what he was accused of, and I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton (though I did vote). But I am surprised about what just happened and am floored by the lack of proceedings between "we claim he raped us" and "he's our justice now" and am looking for the missing link.
united-states supreme-court nomination
united-states supreme-court nomination
edited 21 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
asked 1 hour ago
Aaron
1175
New contributor
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 21 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
asked 1 hour ago
Aaron
1175
New contributor
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 21 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
edited 21 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
edited 21 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
11.8k23465
asked 1 hour ago
Aaron
1175
New contributor
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Aaron
1175
asked 1 hour ago
Aaron
1175
1175
New contributor
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Aaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Google "Susan Collins Kavanaugh speech," to extend the research of this question.
– Drunk Cynic
1 hour ago
1
Maybe a little more research would have been helpful. The FBI concluded its investigation, confirming that there was no corroborating evidence of any accusation, and the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh on Saturday. The Supreme Court actually began its session last Monday, before Kavanaugh was sworn in, so he's coming right into it with the work already underway.
– Joe
1 hour ago
1
@Joe Actually, it was precisely more research that lead me to believe that the FBI did not confirm that there was no corroborating evidence, which I briefly mentioned in the question. Unless the news is lying, the FBI ignored many claims and witnesses. They may have filed a report which stated "We confirm that..." but you cannot actually say they confirmed anything if they didn't honestly look into it. Are the news articles gross exaggerations? It wouldn't be the first time if they were, but I wasn't going to assume that was the case until I had reason to believe otherwise.
– Aaron
1 hour ago
1
@Aaron - We don't really know what the report said, because it was under extreme lockdown (which may, in fact, be normal, but that doesn't change how restrictive it is). All we know for sure (as far as I know) is that it was convincing enough to enable some of the holdouts to vote for him.
– Bobson
1 hour ago
2
@FrankCedeno You are moving the goalpost; You said the allgations are just guilt by association, and that they only accuse Kavanaugh of standing by and drinking. That's simply not true. Both accusations are about sexual assault or harrassment commited by Kavanaugh. Whether or not you personally think that these are credible accusations doesn't change the nature of the accusations.
– tim
36 mins ago
 |Â
show 13 more comments
1
Google "Susan Collins Kavanaugh speech," to extend the research of this question.
– Drunk Cynic
1 hour ago
1
Maybe a little more research would have been helpful. The FBI concluded its investigation, confirming that there was no corroborating evidence of any accusation, and the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh on Saturday. The Supreme Court actually began its session last Monday, before Kavanaugh was sworn in, so he's coming right into it with the work already underway.
– Joe
1 hour ago
1
@Joe Actually, it was precisely more research that lead me to believe that the FBI did not confirm that there was no corroborating evidence, which I briefly mentioned in the question. Unless the news is lying, the FBI ignored many claims and witnesses. They may have filed a report which stated "We confirm that..." but you cannot actually say they confirmed anything if they didn't honestly look into it. Are the news articles gross exaggerations? It wouldn't be the first time if they were, but I wasn't going to assume that was the case until I had reason to believe otherwise.
– Aaron
1 hour ago
1
@Aaron - We don't really know what the report said, because it was under extreme lockdown (which may, in fact, be normal, but that doesn't change how restrictive it is). All we know for sure (as far as I know) is that it was convincing enough to enable some of the holdouts to vote for him.
– Bobson
1 hour ago
2
@FrankCedeno You are moving the goalpost; You said the allgations are just guilt by association, and that they only accuse Kavanaugh of standing by and drinking. That's simply not true. Both accusations are about sexual assault or harrassment commited by Kavanaugh. Whether or not you personally think that these are credible accusations doesn't change the nature of the accusations.
– tim
36 mins ago
1
1
Google "Susan Collins Kavanaugh speech," to extend the research of this question.
– Drunk Cynic
1 hour ago
Google "Susan Collins Kavanaugh speech," to extend the research of this question.
– Drunk Cynic
1 hour ago
1
1
Maybe a little more research would have been helpful. The FBI concluded its investigation, confirming that there was no corroborating evidence of any accusation, and the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh on Saturday. The Supreme Court actually began its session last Monday, before Kavanaugh was sworn in, so he's coming right into it with the work already underway.
– Joe
1 hour ago
Maybe a little more research would have been helpful. The FBI concluded its investigation, confirming that there was no corroborating evidence of any accusation, and the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh on Saturday. The Supreme Court actually began its session last Monday, before Kavanaugh was sworn in, so he's coming right into it with the work already underway.
– Joe
1 hour ago
1
1
@Joe Actually, it was precisely more research that lead me to believe that the FBI did not confirm that there was no corroborating evidence, which I briefly mentioned in the question. Unless the news is lying, the FBI ignored many claims and witnesses. They may have filed a report which stated "We confirm that..." but you cannot actually say they confirmed anything if they didn't honestly look into it. Are the news articles gross exaggerations? It wouldn't be the first time if they were, but I wasn't going to assume that was the case until I had reason to believe otherwise.
– Aaron
1 hour ago
@Joe Actually, it was precisely more research that lead me to believe that the FBI did not confirm that there was no corroborating evidence, which I briefly mentioned in the question. Unless the news is lying, the FBI ignored many claims and witnesses. They may have filed a report which stated "We confirm that..." but you cannot actually say they confirmed anything if they didn't honestly look into it. Are the news articles gross exaggerations? It wouldn't be the first time if they were, but I wasn't going to assume that was the case until I had reason to believe otherwise.
– Aaron
1 hour ago
1
1
@Aaron - We don't really know what the report said, because it was under extreme lockdown (which may, in fact, be normal, but that doesn't change how restrictive it is). All we know for sure (as far as I know) is that it was convincing enough to enable some of the holdouts to vote for him.
– Bobson
1 hour ago
@Aaron - We don't really know what the report said, because it was under extreme lockdown (which may, in fact, be normal, but that doesn't change how restrictive it is). All we know for sure (as far as I know) is that it was convincing enough to enable some of the holdouts to vote for him.
– Bobson
1 hour ago
2
2
@FrankCedeno You are moving the goalpost; You said the allgations are just guilt by association, and that they only accuse Kavanaugh of standing by and drinking. That's simply not true. Both accusations are about sexual assault or harrassment commited by Kavanaugh. Whether or not you personally think that these are credible accusations doesn't change the nature of the accusations.
– tim
36 mins ago
@FrankCedeno You are moving the goalpost; You said the allgations are just guilt by association, and that they only accuse Kavanaugh of standing by and drinking. That's simply not true. Both accusations are about sexual assault or harrassment commited by Kavanaugh. Whether or not you personally think that these are credible accusations doesn't change the nature of the accusations.
– tim
36 mins ago
 |Â
show 13 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
I'm not sure what the standard for evidence is (i.e. for references) on this site.
If you want to know, here's what I inferred from following the Twitters of a couple of (anti-Trump) American lawyers.
- The weren't "sexual assault hearings", they were "senate confirmation hearings"
- Senate procedure has been changed to require only a bare majority, rather than 60%
- News of a historic sexual assault complaint was leaked somehow, late in the process (i.e. just before a vote was due)
- They delayed the vote (for about a week) to hear from the accuser in person
- After those hearings, one Republican said, let's have just a little bit more of that FBI background check
- There's no criminal complaint involved (and if anything the complaint would be of a state crime not a federal crime), so the FBI's investigation is a background investigation (requested by the White House), and not an independent criminal investigation -- the FBI has no mandate to investigate except to whatever extent the White House asks them to
- The White House asked for a limited investigation -- e.g. the FBI didn't interview the accuser, nor the accused, nor review other potential evidence (e.g. therapy notes), nor (so far as I know) did they fact-check what Kavanaugh said during the hearings, nor did they accept testimony from other people (possibly including other independent complaints) who were trying to volunteer it -- which took little time (i.e. completed within a week)
- The results of the investigation were kept secret (not published)
- The Senate majority (IOW the Republican party) then went ahead (within a few days) and voted, having concluded e.g. that the allegations were unproven and the accusation uncertain (to put it politely)
Some complain the scope of the investigation was purposefully limited, to result in a shallow sham, a fig leaf to provide deniability ("we investigated and found nothing").
Conversely, the President said (yesterday's speech at the White House) that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent".
answered 40 mins ago
ChrisW
4637
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The situation is fairly complex so I'm not surprised it was confusing. Here's the general rundown (partially pulled from this article for brevity)
- Sometime in July, Ford (Kavanaugh's accuser) wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein (D-CA) with her allegation that Kavanaugh had assaulted her sometime around 1982. The letter purportedly requested anonymity and Feinstein appears to have honored that request.
- On September 12, The Intercept was fed the letter by an unnamed source. At this point, the confirmation process was nearly complete and the Judiciary Committee was set to hold a vote.
- The next few days saw rapid development of the story, as well as two less credible accusations. Ford's name was exposed and reporters interviewed people named in the letter. Democrats would start to demand hearings during this time.
- On September 27, both Ford and Kavanaugh testified in front of cameras and the Judiciary Committee.
- On September 28, the Judiciary Committe voted, entirely along party lines, to move the nomination to the Senate Floor. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asked the FBI to investigate the allegations before a final vote.
- On October 4 the FBI reported back. The gist of the report (not made public) is that none of any of the allegations of Ford or the other two accusers made could be substantiated.
- On October 6, Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48
How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle?
It wasn't fast tracked. The process was nearly done (almost 2 months of interviews, investigations and meetings with Kavanaugh) when the allegations leaked. The problem for Kavanaugh opponents generally came down to
- The timing. There's no denying the leak was of tremendous benefit to Democrats. Prior speculation was that red-state Democrats would vote to confirm. The allegation ensured that didn't happen (with all except Manchin citing this as the reason they voted "No"). But it also meant that timing before the mid-term elections were seen as stalling for a post-election coup, when Democrats could potentially retake the Senate. There had already been attempts to stall the voting prior to this, and it was widely viewed among Republicans that this was an extension of those attempts. With Republicans in control, there was no convincing them to entertain any more delays.
- A lack of credible allegations. Ford was the only one of the accusers who made any allegations that could be taken seriously (the last accuser changed her story during a TV interview). She testified, with conviction, that it was Kavanaugh who had assaulted her, but nobody she named could corroborate her story, or even when it could have occurred. The FBI appears to have been unable to shed any light on when it could have happened. The other accusations had even worse credibility, with the second admitting she was quite drunk, and the third making outlandish accusations (that Kavanaugh was part of a sex ring).
- Ultimately, the vote on confirming Kavanaugh was about whether or not Senators, not the FBI or police, believed he was guilty of this crime. Having had additional (if criticized) background checking done was unlikely to sway too many people beyond what they had already decided. The politics were already set before the allegations.
answered 49 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Here is a "Tick Tock"-style article about the end of the nomination and the vote. (This link is to the NY Times, but it's an AP article and available elsewhere, too.) It covers what happened when, but it boils down to:
- Committee votes to pass Kavanaugh, with the condition that the FBI do an investigation.
- White House authorizes a one-week investigation. (There are accusations that the FBI was hobbled in this investigation.)
- Four Senators (Republicans Collins, Murkowski and Flake, Democrat Manchin) were undeclared during that week. Because of the 48 committed Republican votes for, and 48 committed Democratic votes against, it required two of these four to agree to pass Kavanaugh in order for him to be confirmed (VP Pence breaks ties).
- The FBI released its report to Senators on Thursday.
- All Senators reviewed it.
- Collins, Flake, and Manchin announced they would vote for Kavanaugh after all.
- The cloture vote happened on Friday, and passed 51-49.
- The confirmation vote happened on Saturday, and passed 50-48 (Murkowski voted "present" instead of "no", to balance the lack of another "yes" Senator who couldn't make the vote).
- Kavanaugh was sworn in in a private ceremony on Saturday.
answered 36 mins ago
Bobson
12.1k12667
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
I'm not sure what the standard for evidence is (i.e. for references) on this site.
If you want to know, here's what I inferred from following the Twitters of a couple of (anti-Trump) American lawyers.
- The weren't "sexual assault hearings", they were "senate confirmation hearings"
- Senate procedure has been changed to require only a bare majority, rather than 60%
- News of a historic sexual assault complaint was leaked somehow, late in the process (i.e. just before a vote was due)
- They delayed the vote (for about a week) to hear from the accuser in person
- After those hearings, one Republican said, let's have just a little bit more of that FBI background check
- There's no criminal complaint involved (and if anything the complaint would be of a state crime not a federal crime), so the FBI's investigation is a background investigation (requested by the White House), and not an independent criminal investigation -- the FBI has no mandate to investigate except to whatever extent the White House asks them to
- The White House asked for a limited investigation -- e.g. the FBI didn't interview the accuser, nor the accused, nor review other potential evidence (e.g. therapy notes), nor (so far as I know) did they fact-check what Kavanaugh said during the hearings, nor did they accept testimony from other people (possibly including other independent complaints) who were trying to volunteer it -- which took little time (i.e. completed within a week)
- The results of the investigation were kept secret (not published)
- The Senate majority (IOW the Republican party) then went ahead (within a few days) and voted, having concluded e.g. that the allegations were unproven and the accusation uncertain (to put it politely)
Some complain the scope of the investigation was purposefully limited, to result in a shallow sham, a fig leaf to provide deniability ("we investigated and found nothing").
Conversely, the President said (yesterday's speech at the White House) that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent".
answered 40 mins ago
ChrisW
4637
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
I'm not sure what the standard for evidence is (i.e. for references) on this site.
If you want to know, here's what I inferred from following the Twitters of a couple of (anti-Trump) American lawyers.
- The weren't "sexual assault hearings", they were "senate confirmation hearings"
- Senate procedure has been changed to require only a bare majority, rather than 60%
- News of a historic sexual assault complaint was leaked somehow, late in the process (i.e. just before a vote was due)
- They delayed the vote (for about a week) to hear from the accuser in person
- After those hearings, one Republican said, let's have just a little bit more of that FBI background check
- There's no criminal complaint involved (and if anything the complaint would be of a state crime not a federal crime), so the FBI's investigation is a background investigation (requested by the White House), and not an independent criminal investigation -- the FBI has no mandate to investigate except to whatever extent the White House asks them to
- The White House asked for a limited investigation -- e.g. the FBI didn't interview the accuser, nor the accused, nor review other potential evidence (e.g. therapy notes), nor (so far as I know) did they fact-check what Kavanaugh said during the hearings, nor did they accept testimony from other people (possibly including other independent complaints) who were trying to volunteer it -- which took little time (i.e. completed within a week)
- The results of the investigation were kept secret (not published)
- The Senate majority (IOW the Republican party) then went ahead (within a few days) and voted, having concluded e.g. that the allegations were unproven and the accusation uncertain (to put it politely)
Some complain the scope of the investigation was purposefully limited, to result in a shallow sham, a fig leaf to provide deniability ("we investigated and found nothing").
Conversely, the President said (yesterday's speech at the White House) that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent".
answered 40 mins ago
ChrisW
4637
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
I'm not sure what the standard for evidence is (i.e. for references) on this site.
If you want to know, here's what I inferred from following the Twitters of a couple of (anti-Trump) American lawyers.
- The weren't "sexual assault hearings", they were "senate confirmation hearings"
- Senate procedure has been changed to require only a bare majority, rather than 60%
- News of a historic sexual assault complaint was leaked somehow, late in the process (i.e. just before a vote was due)
- They delayed the vote (for about a week) to hear from the accuser in person
- After those hearings, one Republican said, let's have just a little bit more of that FBI background check
- There's no criminal complaint involved (and if anything the complaint would be of a state crime not a federal crime), so the FBI's investigation is a background investigation (requested by the White House), and not an independent criminal investigation -- the FBI has no mandate to investigate except to whatever extent the White House asks them to
- The White House asked for a limited investigation -- e.g. the FBI didn't interview the accuser, nor the accused, nor review other potential evidence (e.g. therapy notes), nor (so far as I know) did they fact-check what Kavanaugh said during the hearings, nor did they accept testimony from other people (possibly including other independent complaints) who were trying to volunteer it -- which took little time (i.e. completed within a week)
- The results of the investigation were kept secret (not published)
- The Senate majority (IOW the Republican party) then went ahead (within a few days) and voted, having concluded e.g. that the allegations were unproven and the accusation uncertain (to put it politely)
Some complain the scope of the investigation was purposefully limited, to result in a shallow sham, a fig leaf to provide deniability ("we investigated and found nothing").
Conversely, the President said (yesterday's speech at the White House) that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent".
answered 40 mins ago
ChrisW
4637
I'm not sure what the standard for evidence is (i.e. for references) on this site.
If you want to know, here's what I inferred from following the Twitters of a couple of (anti-Trump) American lawyers.
- The weren't "sexual assault hearings", they were "senate confirmation hearings"
- Senate procedure has been changed to require only a bare majority, rather than 60%
- News of a historic sexual assault complaint was leaked somehow, late in the process (i.e. just before a vote was due)
- They delayed the vote (for about a week) to hear from the accuser in person
- After those hearings, one Republican said, let's have just a little bit more of that FBI background check
- There's no criminal complaint involved (and if anything the complaint would be of a state crime not a federal crime), so the FBI's investigation is a background investigation (requested by the White House), and not an independent criminal investigation -- the FBI has no mandate to investigate except to whatever extent the White House asks them to
- The White House asked for a limited investigation -- e.g. the FBI didn't interview the accuser, nor the accused, nor review other potential evidence (e.g. therapy notes), nor (so far as I know) did they fact-check what Kavanaugh said during the hearings, nor did they accept testimony from other people (possibly including other independent complaints) who were trying to volunteer it -- which took little time (i.e. completed within a week)
- The results of the investigation were kept secret (not published)
- The Senate majority (IOW the Republican party) then went ahead (within a few days) and voted, having concluded e.g. that the allegations were unproven and the accusation uncertain (to put it politely)
Some complain the scope of the investigation was purposefully limited, to result in a shallow sham, a fig leaf to provide deniability ("we investigated and found nothing").
Conversely, the President said (yesterday's speech at the White House) that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent".
answered 40 mins ago
ChrisW
4637
edited 30 mins ago
answered 40 mins ago
ChrisW
4637
answered 40 mins ago
ChrisW
4637
answered 40 mins ago
ChrisW
4637
4637
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The situation is fairly complex so I'm not surprised it was confusing. Here's the general rundown (partially pulled from this article for brevity)
- Sometime in July, Ford (Kavanaugh's accuser) wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein (D-CA) with her allegation that Kavanaugh had assaulted her sometime around 1982. The letter purportedly requested anonymity and Feinstein appears to have honored that request.
- On September 12, The Intercept was fed the letter by an unnamed source. At this point, the confirmation process was nearly complete and the Judiciary Committee was set to hold a vote.
- The next few days saw rapid development of the story, as well as two less credible accusations. Ford's name was exposed and reporters interviewed people named in the letter. Democrats would start to demand hearings during this time.
- On September 27, both Ford and Kavanaugh testified in front of cameras and the Judiciary Committee.
- On September 28, the Judiciary Committe voted, entirely along party lines, to move the nomination to the Senate Floor. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asked the FBI to investigate the allegations before a final vote.
- On October 4 the FBI reported back. The gist of the report (not made public) is that none of any of the allegations of Ford or the other two accusers made could be substantiated.
- On October 6, Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48
How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle?
It wasn't fast tracked. The process was nearly done (almost 2 months of interviews, investigations and meetings with Kavanaugh) when the allegations leaked. The problem for Kavanaugh opponents generally came down to
- The timing. There's no denying the leak was of tremendous benefit to Democrats. Prior speculation was that red-state Democrats would vote to confirm. The allegation ensured that didn't happen (with all except Manchin citing this as the reason they voted "No"). But it also meant that timing before the mid-term elections were seen as stalling for a post-election coup, when Democrats could potentially retake the Senate. There had already been attempts to stall the voting prior to this, and it was widely viewed among Republicans that this was an extension of those attempts. With Republicans in control, there was no convincing them to entertain any more delays.
- A lack of credible allegations. Ford was the only one of the accusers who made any allegations that could be taken seriously (the last accuser changed her story during a TV interview). She testified, with conviction, that it was Kavanaugh who had assaulted her, but nobody she named could corroborate her story, or even when it could have occurred. The FBI appears to have been unable to shed any light on when it could have happened. The other accusations had even worse credibility, with the second admitting she was quite drunk, and the third making outlandish accusations (that Kavanaugh was part of a sex ring).
- Ultimately, the vote on confirming Kavanaugh was about whether or not Senators, not the FBI or police, believed he was guilty of this crime. Having had additional (if criticized) background checking done was unlikely to sway too many people beyond what they had already decided. The politics were already set before the allegations.
answered 49 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The situation is fairly complex so I'm not surprised it was confusing. Here's the general rundown (partially pulled from this article for brevity)
- Sometime in July, Ford (Kavanaugh's accuser) wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein (D-CA) with her allegation that Kavanaugh had assaulted her sometime around 1982. The letter purportedly requested anonymity and Feinstein appears to have honored that request.
- On September 12, The Intercept was fed the letter by an unnamed source. At this point, the confirmation process was nearly complete and the Judiciary Committee was set to hold a vote.
- The next few days saw rapid development of the story, as well as two less credible accusations. Ford's name was exposed and reporters interviewed people named in the letter. Democrats would start to demand hearings during this time.
- On September 27, both Ford and Kavanaugh testified in front of cameras and the Judiciary Committee.
- On September 28, the Judiciary Committe voted, entirely along party lines, to move the nomination to the Senate Floor. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asked the FBI to investigate the allegations before a final vote.
- On October 4 the FBI reported back. The gist of the report (not made public) is that none of any of the allegations of Ford or the other two accusers made could be substantiated.
- On October 6, Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48
How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle?
It wasn't fast tracked. The process was nearly done (almost 2 months of interviews, investigations and meetings with Kavanaugh) when the allegations leaked. The problem for Kavanaugh opponents generally came down to
- The timing. There's no denying the leak was of tremendous benefit to Democrats. Prior speculation was that red-state Democrats would vote to confirm. The allegation ensured that didn't happen (with all except Manchin citing this as the reason they voted "No"). But it also meant that timing before the mid-term elections were seen as stalling for a post-election coup, when Democrats could potentially retake the Senate. There had already been attempts to stall the voting prior to this, and it was widely viewed among Republicans that this was an extension of those attempts. With Republicans in control, there was no convincing them to entertain any more delays.
- A lack of credible allegations. Ford was the only one of the accusers who made any allegations that could be taken seriously (the last accuser changed her story during a TV interview). She testified, with conviction, that it was Kavanaugh who had assaulted her, but nobody she named could corroborate her story, or even when it could have occurred. The FBI appears to have been unable to shed any light on when it could have happened. The other accusations had even worse credibility, with the second admitting she was quite drunk, and the third making outlandish accusations (that Kavanaugh was part of a sex ring).
- Ultimately, the vote on confirming Kavanaugh was about whether or not Senators, not the FBI or police, believed he was guilty of this crime. Having had additional (if criticized) background checking done was unlikely to sway too many people beyond what they had already decided. The politics were already set before the allegations.
answered 49 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The situation is fairly complex so I'm not surprised it was confusing. Here's the general rundown (partially pulled from this article for brevity)
- Sometime in July, Ford (Kavanaugh's accuser) wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein (D-CA) with her allegation that Kavanaugh had assaulted her sometime around 1982. The letter purportedly requested anonymity and Feinstein appears to have honored that request.
- On September 12, The Intercept was fed the letter by an unnamed source. At this point, the confirmation process was nearly complete and the Judiciary Committee was set to hold a vote.
- The next few days saw rapid development of the story, as well as two less credible accusations. Ford's name was exposed and reporters interviewed people named in the letter. Democrats would start to demand hearings during this time.
- On September 27, both Ford and Kavanaugh testified in front of cameras and the Judiciary Committee.
- On September 28, the Judiciary Committe voted, entirely along party lines, to move the nomination to the Senate Floor. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asked the FBI to investigate the allegations before a final vote.
- On October 4 the FBI reported back. The gist of the report (not made public) is that none of any of the allegations of Ford or the other two accusers made could be substantiated.
- On October 6, Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48
How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle?
It wasn't fast tracked. The process was nearly done (almost 2 months of interviews, investigations and meetings with Kavanaugh) when the allegations leaked. The problem for Kavanaugh opponents generally came down to
- The timing. There's no denying the leak was of tremendous benefit to Democrats. Prior speculation was that red-state Democrats would vote to confirm. The allegation ensured that didn't happen (with all except Manchin citing this as the reason they voted "No"). But it also meant that timing before the mid-term elections were seen as stalling for a post-election coup, when Democrats could potentially retake the Senate. There had already been attempts to stall the voting prior to this, and it was widely viewed among Republicans that this was an extension of those attempts. With Republicans in control, there was no convincing them to entertain any more delays.
- A lack of credible allegations. Ford was the only one of the accusers who made any allegations that could be taken seriously (the last accuser changed her story during a TV interview). She testified, with conviction, that it was Kavanaugh who had assaulted her, but nobody she named could corroborate her story, or even when it could have occurred. The FBI appears to have been unable to shed any light on when it could have happened. The other accusations had even worse credibility, with the second admitting she was quite drunk, and the third making outlandish accusations (that Kavanaugh was part of a sex ring).
- Ultimately, the vote on confirming Kavanaugh was about whether or not Senators, not the FBI or police, believed he was guilty of this crime. Having had additional (if criticized) background checking done was unlikely to sway too many people beyond what they had already decided. The politics were already set before the allegations.
answered 49 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
The situation is fairly complex so I'm not surprised it was confusing. Here's the general rundown (partially pulled from this article for brevity)
- Sometime in July, Ford (Kavanaugh's accuser) wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein (D-CA) with her allegation that Kavanaugh had assaulted her sometime around 1982. The letter purportedly requested anonymity and Feinstein appears to have honored that request.
- On September 12, The Intercept was fed the letter by an unnamed source. At this point, the confirmation process was nearly complete and the Judiciary Committee was set to hold a vote.
- The next few days saw rapid development of the story, as well as two less credible accusations. Ford's name was exposed and reporters interviewed people named in the letter. Democrats would start to demand hearings during this time.
- On September 27, both Ford and Kavanaugh testified in front of cameras and the Judiciary Committee.
- On September 28, the Judiciary Committe voted, entirely along party lines, to move the nomination to the Senate Floor. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asked the FBI to investigate the allegations before a final vote.
- On October 4 the FBI reported back. The gist of the report (not made public) is that none of any of the allegations of Ford or the other two accusers made could be substantiated.
- On October 6, Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48
How did this just get fast tracked? Where is the politics in the middle?
It wasn't fast tracked. The process was nearly done (almost 2 months of interviews, investigations and meetings with Kavanaugh) when the allegations leaked. The problem for Kavanaugh opponents generally came down to
- The timing. There's no denying the leak was of tremendous benefit to Democrats. Prior speculation was that red-state Democrats would vote to confirm. The allegation ensured that didn't happen (with all except Manchin citing this as the reason they voted "No"). But it also meant that timing before the mid-term elections were seen as stalling for a post-election coup, when Democrats could potentially retake the Senate. There had already been attempts to stall the voting prior to this, and it was widely viewed among Republicans that this was an extension of those attempts. With Republicans in control, there was no convincing them to entertain any more delays.
- A lack of credible allegations. Ford was the only one of the accusers who made any allegations that could be taken seriously (the last accuser changed her story during a TV interview). She testified, with conviction, that it was Kavanaugh who had assaulted her, but nobody she named could corroborate her story, or even when it could have occurred. The FBI appears to have been unable to shed any light on when it could have happened. The other accusations had even worse credibility, with the second admitting she was quite drunk, and the third making outlandish accusations (that Kavanaugh was part of a sex ring).
- Ultimately, the vote on confirming Kavanaugh was about whether or not Senators, not the FBI or police, believed he was guilty of this crime. Having had additional (if criticized) background checking done was unlikely to sway too many people beyond what they had already decided. The politics were already set before the allegations.
answered 49 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
answered 49 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
answered 49 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
answered 49 mins ago
Machavity
11.8k23465
11.8k23465
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Here is a "Tick Tock"-style article about the end of the nomination and the vote. (This link is to the NY Times, but it's an AP article and available elsewhere, too.) It covers what happened when, but it boils down to:
- Committee votes to pass Kavanaugh, with the condition that the FBI do an investigation.
- White House authorizes a one-week investigation. (There are accusations that the FBI was hobbled in this investigation.)
- Four Senators (Republicans Collins, Murkowski and Flake, Democrat Manchin) were undeclared during that week. Because of the 48 committed Republican votes for, and 48 committed Democratic votes against, it required two of these four to agree to pass Kavanaugh in order for him to be confirmed (VP Pence breaks ties).
- The FBI released its report to Senators on Thursday.
- All Senators reviewed it.
- Collins, Flake, and Manchin announced they would vote for Kavanaugh after all.
- The cloture vote happened on Friday, and passed 51-49.
- The confirmation vote happened on Saturday, and passed 50-48 (Murkowski voted "present" instead of "no", to balance the lack of another "yes" Senator who couldn't make the vote).
- Kavanaugh was sworn in in a private ceremony on Saturday.
answered 36 mins ago
Bobson
12.1k12667
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Here is a "Tick Tock"-style article about the end of the nomination and the vote. (This link is to the NY Times, but it's an AP article and available elsewhere, too.) It covers what happened when, but it boils down to:
- Committee votes to pass Kavanaugh, with the condition that the FBI do an investigation.
- White House authorizes a one-week investigation. (There are accusations that the FBI was hobbled in this investigation.)
- Four Senators (Republicans Collins, Murkowski and Flake, Democrat Manchin) were undeclared during that week. Because of the 48 committed Republican votes for, and 48 committed Democratic votes against, it required two of these four to agree to pass Kavanaugh in order for him to be confirmed (VP Pence breaks ties).
- The FBI released its report to Senators on Thursday.
- All Senators reviewed it.
- Collins, Flake, and Manchin announced they would vote for Kavanaugh after all.
- The cloture vote happened on Friday, and passed 51-49.
- The confirmation vote happened on Saturday, and passed 50-48 (Murkowski voted "present" instead of "no", to balance the lack of another "yes" Senator who couldn't make the vote).
- Kavanaugh was sworn in in a private ceremony on Saturday.
answered 36 mins ago
Bobson
12.1k12667
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Here is a "Tick Tock"-style article about the end of the nomination and the vote. (This link is to the NY Times, but it's an AP article and available elsewhere, too.) It covers what happened when, but it boils down to:
- Committee votes to pass Kavanaugh, with the condition that the FBI do an investigation.
- White House authorizes a one-week investigation. (There are accusations that the FBI was hobbled in this investigation.)
- Four Senators (Republicans Collins, Murkowski and Flake, Democrat Manchin) were undeclared during that week. Because of the 48 committed Republican votes for, and 48 committed Democratic votes against, it required two of these four to agree to pass Kavanaugh in order for him to be confirmed (VP Pence breaks ties).
- The FBI released its report to Senators on Thursday.
- All Senators reviewed it.
- Collins, Flake, and Manchin announced they would vote for Kavanaugh after all.
- The cloture vote happened on Friday, and passed 51-49.
- The confirmation vote happened on Saturday, and passed 50-48 (Murkowski voted "present" instead of "no", to balance the lack of another "yes" Senator who couldn't make the vote).
- Kavanaugh was sworn in in a private ceremony on Saturday.
answered 36 mins ago
Bobson
12.1k12667
Here is a "Tick Tock"-style article about the end of the nomination and the vote. (This link is to the NY Times, but it's an AP article and available elsewhere, too.) It covers what happened when, but it boils down to:
- Committee votes to pass Kavanaugh, with the condition that the FBI do an investigation.
- White House authorizes a one-week investigation. (There are accusations that the FBI was hobbled in this investigation.)
- Four Senators (Republicans Collins, Murkowski and Flake, Democrat Manchin) were undeclared during that week. Because of the 48 committed Republican votes for, and 48 committed Democratic votes against, it required two of these four to agree to pass Kavanaugh in order for him to be confirmed (VP Pence breaks ties).
- The FBI released its report to Senators on Thursday.
- All Senators reviewed it.
- Collins, Flake, and Manchin announced they would vote for Kavanaugh after all.
- The cloture vote happened on Friday, and passed 51-49.
- The confirmation vote happened on Saturday, and passed 50-48 (Murkowski voted "present" instead of "no", to balance the lack of another "yes" Senator who couldn't make the vote).
- Kavanaugh was sworn in in a private ceremony on Saturday.
answered 36 mins ago
Bobson
12.1k12667
answered 36 mins ago
Bobson
12.1k12667
answered 36 mins ago
Bobson
12.1k12667
answered 36 mins ago
Bobson
12.1k12667
12.1k12667
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Aaron is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aaron is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aaron is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Aaron is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34322%2fhow-did-the-kavanaugh-confirmation-move-so-quickly-despite-the-serious-allegatio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Google "Susan Collins Kavanaugh speech," to extend the research of this question.
– Drunk Cynic
1 hour ago
1
Maybe a little more research would have been helpful. The FBI concluded its investigation, confirming that there was no corroborating evidence of any accusation, and the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh on Saturday. The Supreme Court actually began its session last Monday, before Kavanaugh was sworn in, so he's coming right into it with the work already underway.
– Joe
1 hour ago
1
@Joe Actually, it was precisely more research that lead me to believe that the FBI did not confirm that there was no corroborating evidence, which I briefly mentioned in the question. Unless the news is lying, the FBI ignored many claims and witnesses. They may have filed a report which stated "We confirm that..." but you cannot actually say they confirmed anything if they didn't honestly look into it. Are the news articles gross exaggerations? It wouldn't be the first time if they were, but I wasn't going to assume that was the case until I had reason to believe otherwise.
– Aaron
1 hour ago
1
@Aaron - We don't really know what the report said, because it was under extreme lockdown (which may, in fact, be normal, but that doesn't change how restrictive it is). All we know for sure (as far as I know) is that it was convincing enough to enable some of the holdouts to vote for him.
– Bobson
1 hour ago
2
@FrankCedeno You are moving the goalpost; You said the allgations are just guilt by association, and that they only accuse Kavanaugh of standing by and drinking. That's simply not true. Both accusations are about sexual assault or harrassment commited by Kavanaugh. Whether or not you personally think that these are credible accusations doesn't change the nature of the accusations.
– tim
36 mins ago