Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But Kavanaugh's rant, where he unleashed a torrent of abuse at Democrats on the panel and in general, and his blatant and rude disrespect for Democrats on the committee should, frankly, have been called out by Republicans. Charles Grassley is the ringmaster of this circus. HE could have called on both kavanaugh and committee members to be respectful and stop slinging mud at each other. Not only did he not do that; he exacerbated it with one nasty little maneuver after another, including the way he ended Friday's meeting.

---

Which of Kavanaugh's opinions show clear partisan political bias?

---

I'm not referring to his decisions.

I'm referring to his rant about a Democratic conspiracy to bring him down as revenge for the Clintons and his behavior toward the Democratic senators on the panel.

Justice is supposed to be nonpartisan. Kavanaugh called his ability to be nonpartisan into question.

---

You don't have to be non-partisan when you are the accused.

---

Kavanaugh is not accused of a crime.

Dr. Blasey Ford came forward as a character witness to express her view that Judge Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS because of his moral character, and explain why she believes this.

It's up to 5 senators to decide whether to accept her testimony as a negating factor. Most Democratic senators supported Kaanaugh on ideological grounds, because it's clear that his selection is based on his overturning Roe v. Wade and, possibly, gay marriage. That's what Trump promised, and it may be the only one of his promises he keeps. (We aren't going to build the wall, and neither are the Mexicans.)

The Senate committee was prepared to advance him to the senate. But Flake ultimately couldn't bring himself to do that without a genuine investigation. Now the question is whether that's actually going to happen, or whether the investigation is going to be for show.

---

Technically his nomination made it out of committee and was advanced to the full senate. What Flake did last minute was commit the majority leader to an additional FBI investigation of limited scope in order to obtain the votes of fence-sitting Republicans. Even with an additional investigation, Kav won't receive any democrat votes.

The 80's....fun times if you were a Senator.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But Kavanaugh's rant, where he unleashed a torrent of abuse at Democrats on the panel and in general, and his blatant and rude disrespect for Democrats on the committee should, frankly, have been called out by Republicans. Charles Grassley is the ringmaster of this circus. HE could have called on both kavanaugh and committee members to be respectful and stop slinging mud at each other. Not only did he not do that; he exacerbated it with one nasty little maneuver after another, including the way he ended Friday's meeting.

---

Which of Kavanaugh's opinions show clear partisan political bias?

---

I'm not referring to his decisions.

I'm referring to his rant about a Democratic conspiracy to bring him down as revenge for the Clintons and his behavior toward the Democratic senators on the panel.

Justice is supposed to be nonpartisan. Kavanaugh called his ability to be nonpartisan into question.

---

You don't have to be non-partisan when you are the accused.

---

Kavanaugh is not accused of a crime.

Dr. Blasey Ford came forward as a character witness to express her view that Judge Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS because of his moral character, and explain why she believes this.

It's up to 5 senators to decide whether to accept her testimony as a negating factor. Most Democratic senators supported Kaanaugh on ideological grounds, because it's clear that his selection is based on his overturning Roe v. Wade and, possibly, gay marriage. That's what Trump promised, and it may be the only one of his promises he keeps. (We aren't going to build the wall, and neither are the Mexicans.)

The Senate committee was prepared to advance him to the senate. But Flake ultimately couldn't bring himself to do that without a genuine investigation. Now the question is whether that's actually going to happen, or whether the investigation is going to be for show.

---

Technically his nomination made it out of committee and was advanced to the full senate. What Flake did last minute was commit the majority leader to an additional FBI investigation of limited scope in order to obtain the votes of fence-sitting Republicans. Even with an additional investigation, Kav won't receive any democrat votes.

---

He might get Mansion or Heidtkamp (sp?).

He bizarrely answered a lot of questions with a question. He told a couple of white lies as well. I don't think he's a rapist, but he failed the interview. Plenty of qualified conservative judges to take his place for a lifelong appointment.

Jinx 2 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But Kavanaugh's rant, where he unleashed a torrent of abuse at Democrats on the panel and in general, and his blatant and rude disrespect for Democrats on the committee should, frankly, have been called out by Republicans. Charles Grassley is the ringmaster of this circus. HE could have called on both kavanaugh and committee members to be respectful and stop slinging mud at each other. Not only did he not do that; he exacerbated it with one nasty little maneuver after another, including the way he ended Friday's meeting.

---

Which of Kavanaugh's opinions show clear partisan political bias?

---

I'm not referring to his decisions.

I'm referring to his rant about a Democratic conspiracy to bring him down as revenge for the Clintons and his behavior toward the Democratic senators on the panel.

Justice is supposed to be nonpartisan. Kavanaugh called his ability to be nonpartisan into question.

---

You don't have to be non-partisan when you are the accused.

---

Kavanaugh is not accused of a crime.

Dr. Blasey Ford came forward as a character witness to express her view that Judge Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS because of his moral character, and explain why she believes this.

It's up to 5 senators to decide whether to accept her testimony as a negating factor. Most Democratic senators supported Kaanaugh on ideological grounds, because it's clear that his selection is based on his overturning Roe v. Wade and, possibly, gay marriage. That's what Trump promised, and it may be the only one of his promises he keeps. (We aren't going to build the wall, and neither are the Mexicans.)

The Senate committee was prepared to advance him to the senate. But Flake ultimately couldn't bring himself to do that without a genuine investigation. Now the question is whether that's actually going to happen, or whether the investigation is going to be for show.

---

Technically his nomination made it out of committee and was advanced to the full senate. What Flake did last minute was commit the majority leader to an additional FBI investigation of limited scope in order to obtain the votes of fence-sitting Republicans. Even with an additional investigation, Kav won't receive any democrat votes.

---

He might get Mansion or Heidtkamp (sp?).

---

This will depend on polling from this week. Manchin is probably the most likely of any Ds to vote yes, simply because he is up for reelection in WV. I think Heitkamp probably has more political cover to vote no in North Dakota. Just my guess, though.

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But Kavanaugh's rant, where he unleashed a torrent of abuse at Democrats on the panel and in general, and his blatant and rude disrespect for Democrats on the committee should, frankly, have been called out by Republicans. Charles Grassley is the ringmaster of this circus. HE could have called on both kavanaugh and committee members to be respectful and stop slinging mud at each other. Not only did he not do that; he exacerbated it with one nasty little maneuver after another, including the way he ended Friday's meeting.

---

Which of Kavanaugh's opinions show clear partisan political bias?

---

I'm not referring to his decisions.

I'm referring to his rant about a Democratic conspiracy to bring him down as revenge for the Clintons and his behavior toward the Democratic senators on the panel.

Justice is supposed to be nonpartisan. Kavanaugh called his ability to be nonpartisan into question.

---

Was he acting as a judge in hearing Thursday?

Has he, while acting as a Judge, acted in a clearly political, biased manner?

---

Thursday was a job interview.

You don't throw a tantrum at the job interview and expect to be hired.

He might have proved himself innocent of the allegations against him (not just Ford's, but others) in the view of Republicans in the senate and every Republican in the U.S.

He may also have proved himself unqualified to sit on SCOTUS by character or temperament. At least in the view of most Democrats in the Senate (Joe Mansion may vote for Kavanaugh, and so may Heidi Heidtkamp) and most in the U.S.

We're polarized on Kavanaugh along the same lines we are about Trump. And Kavanaugh helped that along by making it clear he was loyal to Trump.

---

There you go again, not addressing my question.

I will try again.

Other than Thursday, a day when he appeared in front of a panel of 21 Senators, weeks after appearing in front of the same panel addressing broader issues of his qualifications and backgrounds, to address specific, targeted allegations of his conduct in a single case, has he while acting as a Judge, acted in a clearly political, biased manner?

---

Do you like beer, 303?

Kavanaugh didn't answer questions posed by Democratic senators Thursday, and when he didn't, he answered some of them sarcastically and dishonestly.

You are all endorsing, in fact celebrating, his behavior.

But, OK--why was he there? Because he is a judge who was nominated for a promotion that happens to be a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. IMO, Kavanaugh shouldn't even be on the 10th Circuit.

The accusations are going to fizzle....time for the Dems to play their new political card.

You will hear "temperament" 100x a day now.

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But Kavanaugh's rant, where he unleashed a torrent of abuse at Democrats on the panel and in general, and his blatant and rude disrespect for Democrats on the committee should, frankly, have been called out by Republicans. Charles Grassley is the ringmaster of this circus. HE could have called on both kavanaugh and committee members to be respectful and stop slinging mud at each other. Not only did he not do that; he exacerbated it with one nasty little maneuver after another, including the way he ended Friday's meeting.

---

Which of Kavanaugh's opinions show clear partisan political bias?

---

I'm not referring to his decisions.

I'm referring to his rant about a Democratic conspiracy to bring him down as revenge for the Clintons and his behavior toward the Democratic senators on the panel.

Justice is supposed to be nonpartisan. Kavanaugh called his ability to be nonpartisan into question.

---

You don't have to be non-partisan when you are the accused.

---

Kavanaugh is not accused of a crime.

Dr. Blasey Ford came forward as a character witness to express her view that Judge Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS because of his moral character, and explain why she believes this.

It's up to 5 senators to decide whether to accept her testimony as a negating factor. Most Democratic senators supported Kaanaugh on ideological grounds, because it's clear that his selection is based on his overturning Roe v. Wade and, possibly, gay marriage. That's what Trump promised, and it may be the only one of his promises he keeps. (We aren't going to build the wall, and neither are the Mexicans.)

The Senate committee was prepared to advance him to the senate. But Flake ultimately couldn't bring himself to do that without a genuine investigation. Now the question is whether that's actually going to happen, or whether the investigation is going to be for show.

---

Technically his nomination made it out of committee and was advanced to the full senate. What Flake did last minute was commit the majority leader to an additional FBI investigation of limited scope in order to obtain the votes of fence-sitting Republicans. Even with an additional investigation, Kav won't receive any democrat votes.

---

He might get Mansion or Heidtkamp (sp?).

---

This will depend on polling from this week. Manchin is probably the most likely of any Ds to vote yes, simply because he is up for reelection in WV. I think Heitkamp probably has more political cover to vote no in North Dakota. Just my guess, though.

---

I agree. WV is a very conservative state, and I'm frankly surprised Manchin is still there.

If her plan was to stay 'anonymous' why did she delete all her social media accounts?

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But Kavanaugh's rant, where he unleashed a torrent of abuse at Democrats on the panel and in general, and his blatant and rude disrespect for Democrats on the committee should, frankly, have been called out by Republicans. Charles Grassley is the ringmaster of this circus. HE could have called on both kavanaugh and committee members to be respectful and stop slinging mud at each other. Not only did he not do that; he exacerbated it with one nasty little maneuver after another, including the way he ended Friday's meeting.

---

Which of Kavanaugh's opinions show clear partisan political bias?

---

I'm not referring to his decisions.

I'm referring to his rant about a Democratic conspiracy to bring him down as revenge for the Clintons and his behavior toward the Democratic senators on the panel.

Justice is supposed to be nonpartisan. Kavanaugh called his ability to be nonpartisan into question.

---

Was he acting as a judge in hearing Thursday?

Has he, while acting as a Judge, acted in a clearly political, biased manner?

---

Thursday was a job interview.

You don't throw a tantrum at the job interview and expect to be hired.

He might have proved himself innocent of the allegations against him (not just Ford's, but others) in the view of Republicans in the senate and every Republican in the U.S.

He may also have proved himself unqualified to sit on SCOTUS by character or temperament. At least in the view of most Democrats in the Senate (Joe Mansion may vote for Kavanaugh, and so may Heidi Heidtkamp) and most in the U.S.

We're polarized on Kavanaugh along the same lines we are about Trump. And Kavanaugh helped that along by making it clear he was loyal to Trump.

---

There you go again, not addressing my question.

I will try again.

Other than Thursday, a day when he appeared in front of a panel of 21 Senators, weeks after appearing in front of the same panel addressing broader issues of his qualifications and backgrounds, to address specific, targeted allegations of his conduct in a single case, has he while acting as a Judge, acted in a clearly political, biased manner?

---

Do you like beer, 303?

Kavanaugh didn't answer questions posed by Democratic senators Thursday, and when he didn't, he answered some of them sarcastically and dishonestly.

You are all endorsing, in fact celebrating, his behavior.

But, OK--why was he there? Because he is a judge who was nominated for a promotion that happens to be a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. IMO, Kavanaugh shouldn't even be on the 10th Circuit.

---

Please point out where I do either of the things you claim in the bolded.

And again, when has he, acting as a judge, acted in a clearly political, biased manner? It is a very simple question and one I would think someone so completely opposed to a nominee would be able to answer.

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

But Kavanaugh's rant, where he unleashed a torrent of abuse at Democrats on the panel and in general, and his blatant and rude disrespect for Democrats on the committee should, frankly, have been called out by Republicans. Charles Grassley is the ringmaster of this circus. HE could have called on both kavanaugh and committee members to be respectful and stop slinging mud at each other. Not only did he not do that; he exacerbated it with one nasty little maneuver after another, including the way he ended Friday's meeting.

---

Which of Kavanaugh's opinions show clear partisan political bias?

---

I'm not referring to his decisions.

I'm referring to his rant about a Democratic conspiracy to bring him down as revenge for the Clintons and his behavior toward the Democratic senators on the panel.

Justice is supposed to be nonpartisan. Kavanaugh called his ability to be nonpartisan into question.

---

You don't have to be non-partisan when you are the accused.

---

Kavanaugh is not accused of a crime.

Dr. Blasey Ford came forward as a character witness to express her view that Judge Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS because of his moral character, and explain why she believes this.

It's up to 5 senators to decide whether to accept her testimony as a negating factor. Most Democratic senators opposed Kaanaugh on ideological grounds, because it's clear that his selection is based on his overturning Roe v. Wade and, possibly, gay marriage. That's what Trump promised, and it may be the only one of his promises he keeps. (We aren't going to build the wall, and neither are the Mexicans.)

The Senate committee was prepared to advance him to the senate. But Flake ultimately couldn't bring himself to do that without a genuine investigation. Now the question is whether that's actually going to happen, or whether the investigation is going to be for show.

---

1. He is being accused of sexually assaulting a woman. That is a crime. Yes, this is not a criminal trial, but he is absolutely being accused of a crime.

2. The Democrats handled the allegation poorly and waiting until the last minute is ridiculous. Anyone being honest, left or right, will admit the Democrats were playing political games by holding onto this information until the end. If the Democrats truly wanted an untainted and thorough investigation done, they could have passed the information on to the FBI who could have conducted an investigation while still keeping the alleged victim's identity confidential. But they didn't do that. They knew the allegations lacked any evidence and it was flimsy, at best. So they held onto until the end to delay the vote in hopes that it would get pushed back beyond the midterms. This was a political stunt and Brett had every reason to be upset and the alleged victim should be upset with the way the Democrats handled it as well - because all confidentiality was lost and because it's impossible for the FBI to complete a truly impartial and thorough investigation at this time.

3. This whole thing has been for show. The democrats on the committee don't really care about the victim, they just want to delay the vote. And they think this is payback for the way their guy was treated in 2016, but this isn't the same. Their nominee wasn't dragged through the mud and life ruined over an unsubstantiated allegation from 35+ years ago. Yes, the republicans played cheap partisan politics, but they didn't ruin a man's life and a woman's life with the way they treated the situation. The Democrats are going to pay a steep political price for this because while it plays well with their base (see yourself), most people in the middle, which are already jaded by the antics of the two parties, can see right throug this.

Jack Bauer said:

---

The accusations are going to fizzle....time for the Dems to play their new political card.

You will hear "temperament" 100x a day now.

---

I think it's a ridiculously partisan argument that is only going to play well to those already against him.

The idea that we have over 12 years of his temperament as a judge, but all of that should be discounted because of his righteous anger at being accused of gang-rape, is the very definition of a partisan (adj.) attack.

Feinstein opened up her questioning about the ridiculous gang-rape charges and he was supposed to just be non-pulsed by that? I would question his honesty if he sat there straight-faced with no emotion.

Did anyone read the questions he had to answer the day before the hearing, under oath, for the judiciary committee?-- it's disgusting, and probably a large reason why he was so incensed by the whole spectacle.

Jack Bauer said:

---

The 80's....fun times if you were a Senator.

---

Sex scandals - a bipartisan sport:

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States&action=edit§ion=6][/url]

• Donald "Buz" Lukens Representative (R-OH) Convicted of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor for having sex with a 16 yr old girl. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500. (1989)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-47][47][/url]
• Robert Bauman, Representative (R-MD), was charged with attempting to solicit sex from a 16-year-old male prostitute.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Russakoff-WaPo-4Oct1980-48][48][/url] Upon completing an alcoholism rehabilitation program, the charges were dropped. Bauman apologized to voters for his indiscretions but was defeated for re-election.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-49][49][/url](1980)
• Jon Hinson, Representative (R-MS), resigned after being charged with attempted sodomy for performing oral sex on a male employee of the Library of Congress.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-50][50][/url] (1981)
• Thomas Evans, Representative (R-DE), went golfing in Florida with nude model and lobbyist Paula Parkinson, who later suggested her lobbying techniques had been "unusually tactile".[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-51][51][/url] Though Evans apologized for any appearance of impropriety, he was voted out of office in 1982. Future Vice-President Dan Quayle and Congressman Tom Railsback went on the golf trip too but were not implicated in the sex.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-52][52][/url] Marilyn Quayle said it was common knowledge that her husband would "rather play golf than have sex any day."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-53][53][/url] (1981)
• John Schmitz, Representative (R-CA), leader of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-warrick-54][54][/url] admitted to having a second family, but refused to accept or support the two children he produced who became wards of the state. (1982)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-55][55][/url]
• Dan Crane, Representative, (R-IL), was censured July 20, 1983, in the Congressional Page sex scandal for having sex with a young congressional page. (1983)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ReferenceA-56][56][/url]
• Gerry Studds, Representative (D-MA), was censured July 20, 1983, in the Congressional Page sex scandal for having sex with a young congressional staffer. (1983)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ReferenceA-56][56][/url]
• Gary Hart, Senator (D-CO): while seeking the Democratic nomination for president, Hart was photographed with model Donna Rice on a boat named 'Monkey Business' during a trip to the Bahamas. His popularity plummeted and he soon dropped out. (1987)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-57][57][/url]
• Ernie Konnyu, Representative (R-CA), Konnyu was accused of sexual harassment. He had asked a female aide to move a name tag she was wearing because it was drawing attention to her breasts, about which he later said: "She is not exactly heavily stacked, OK?" In another instance, he reportedly touched the knee of lobbyist Polly Minor during lunch, which caused a scene. GOP leaders were unhappy with Konnyu's temperament anyway, so they found Stanford professor Tom Campbell who ousted Konnyu the following June.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-58][58][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-59][59][/url] (1987)
• Barney Frank, Representative (D-MA), was reprimanded by the House for fixing 33 parking tickets for Steve Gobie, a male escort who lived with Frank and claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment without his knowledge. (1989)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-60][60][/url]
• Gus Savage, Representative (D-IL), was accused of trying to force himself on a female Peace Corps worker while in Zaire.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-61][61][/url] No action was taken by the House Ethics Committee after he apologized to her. (1989)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-62][62][/url]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States&action=edit§ion=7][/url]

• Arlan Stangeland (R-MN) U.S. House of Representatives (1977 1991). He lost his campaign for re-election in 1990, largely because of a scandal, having made several hundred long-distance phone calls on his House credit card to a female lobbyist from Virginia. He admitted that he had made the calls, but denied having a romantic relationship with the woman. After his loss he subsequently retired from politics.(1990)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Rasky-63][63][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-64][64][/url]
• Clarence Thomas, SCOTUS nominee, was accused of sexual harrassment by Anita Hill prior to his Senate Confirmation Hearings. He later wrote an autobiography addressing Anita Hill's allegations, and she also wrote an autobiography addressing her experience in the hearings. 1991 [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-65][65][/url]
• Austin J. Murphy, Representative (D-PA), acknowledged fathering a child out of wedlock after a political opponent came forward with video of Murphy leaving the home of his mistress.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-66][66][/url] (1990)
• Charles S. Robb Senator (D-VA) while married to Lynda Bird Johnson, Robb acknowledged drinking champagne and having a nude massage with Miss Virginia Tai Collins denying an affair, though he admitted an "indiscreet friendship." Collins claimed it was an 18-month affair. Soon after, Collins appeared nude in Playboy.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-sabato-67][67][/url] (1991)
• Brock Adams, Senator (D-WA), was accused by eight women of committing various acts of sexual misconduct, ranging from sexual harassment to rape.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-68][68][/url] Adams denied the accusations, there was no criminal prosecution, and he did not run for re-election.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-69][69][/url] (1992)
• Robert Packwood, Senator (R-OR), resigned his office after 29 women came forward with claims of sexual harassment, abuse, and assaults. His denials of any wrongdoing were eventually contradicted by his own diaries boasting of his sexual conquests. (1995)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-70][70][/url]
• Ken Calvert, Representative (R-CA), was involved with a prostitute, but claimed that no money was involved, and he was not arrested.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Gorman-71][71][/url] Calvert apologized: "My conduct that evening was inappropriate.... it violated the values of the person I strive to be."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Gorman-71][71][/url] (1993)
• Helen Chenoweth-Hage, Representative (R-ID), called for the resignation of Bill Clinton, and then admitted in 1998 to having had a six-year affair with a married rancher before she entered government.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-72][72][/url] Chenoweth said: "Fourteen years ago, when I was a private citizen and a single woman, I was involved in a relationship that I came to regret, that I'm not proud of....I only wish I could have learned the lessons sooner."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-73][73][/url] (1998)
• Bob Barr, Representative (R-GA), had an affair while married to his second wife. Barr was the first lawmaker in either chamber to call for Clinton's resignation due to the Lewinsky scandal. Barr lost a primary challenge less than three years after the impeachment proceedings. (1999)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Spoiler-74][74][/url]
• Dan Burton, Representative (R-IN): In 1995 speaking of the then-recent affairs of Republican Robert Packwood and the unfolding affair of Democrat Bill Clinton Burton stated "No one, regardless of what party they serve, no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties...." In 1998 Vanity Fair printed an article detailing an affair which Burton himself had in 1983 which produced a child. Before publication Burton admitted to fathering a son with a former state employee.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-75][75][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-76][76][/url]
• Robert Livingston, Representative (R-LA), called for the resignation of Bill Clinton and when his own extramarital affairs were leaked, his wife urged him to resign and urge Clinton to do likewise. (1998)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-77][77][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-78][78][/url]
• Newt Gingrich, Representative (R-GA) and leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-79][79][/url] resigned from the House after admitting in 1998 to having had an affair with a staffer while he was married to his second wife, and at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury regarding an affair with his intern Monica Lewinsky. (1998)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-80][80][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-81][81][/url]
• Henry Hyde, Representative (R-IL): in 1998, Salon.com stated that from 1965 to 1969 (before Hyde won federal office), he conducted an extramarital sexual affair with a married woman who had three children from her marriage. Hyde, who was 41 years old and married when the affair occurred, admitted to the affair in 1998, describing the relationship as a "youthful indiscretion".The revelation of this affair took place as Hyde was spearheading the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-82][82][/url]
• Pete Domenici Senator (R-NM) voted for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 after his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In 2013 he confessed that in 1978 he fathered a son, Adam Laxalt, outside of his marriage; Adam Laxalt's mother is Michelle Laxalt, the daughter of Senator Paul Laxalt and a prominent Republican lobbyist.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-83][83][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-84][84][/url]
• Bill Clinton, President (D) Revelations that White House intern Monica Lewinsky had oral sex with Clinton in the Oval Office leading him to famously declare on TV on January 26, 1998, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." The scandal led to impeachment by the House for perjury, for lying about the affair under oath. He was acquitted in the Senate with 55 senators voting Not Guilty to 45 senators voting Guilty (falling 22 votes short of the two-thirds necessary to convict). (1998)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-85][85][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-86][86][/url] In a plea bargain to avoid another trial alleging charges of impeding the initial investigation, Clinton's law license was suspended by the state of Arkansas for five years.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-87][87][/url] Additionally, Clinton was accused by Juanita Broaddrick for sexual assault.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-88][88][/url]
• Mel Reynolds, Representative (D-IL), resigned from Congress in 1995 after a conviction for statutory rape. In August 1994, he was indicted for sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse for engaging in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer that began during the 1992 campaign.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-npr-89][89][/url]Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected that November; he had no opposition.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-npr-89][89][/url] Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995, he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1 of that year.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-baic-90][90][/url]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States&action=edit§ion=8][/url]

• Gary Condit, Representative (D-CA): his affair with 23-year-old intern Chandra Levy was exposed after Levy disappeared. Her body was found a year later and in 2008, an illegal immigrant with no relation to Condit was charged with her murder.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-91][91][/url] Condit had often demanded that Bill Clinton "come clean" about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. (2001)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-92][92][/url]
• Ed Schrock, Representative (R-VA), announced he would abort his 2004 attempt for a third term in Congress after allegedly being caught on tape soliciting sex from a male prostitute after having aggressively opposed various gay-rights issues in Congress, such as same-sex marriage and gays in the military.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-93][93][/url]
• Strom Thurmond, Senator (R-SC), noted segregationist, fathered a child, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, with a 15-year-old African American in 1925 who was employed by the Thurmond family. (2003)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-94][94][/url]
• Steven C. LaTourette, Representative (R-OH), was elected in 1994 and had voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal. He himself had a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook, while he was married. He married Laptook after his divorce. (2003)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-95][95][/url]
• David Dreier, Representative (R-CA), voted against a number of gay rights proposals, but was outed concerning his relationship with his chief of staff. (2004)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-96][96][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-97][97][/url] He is featured in the 2009 documentary film Outrage.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-98][98][/url]
• Don Sherwood, Representative (R-PA), failed to win re-election following revelations of a five-year extramarital affair with Cynthia Ore, who accused him of physically abusing her. (2004)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-99][99][/url]
• Mark Foley, Representative (R-FL), resigned his House seat when accused of sending sexually explicit e-mails to teenage male congressional pages. He was replaced by Tim Mahoney. (2006)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-100][100][/url]
• David Vitter, Senator (R-LA), took over the House seat of former Congressman Robert Livingston, who resigned in 1999 following revelations of an extramarital affair. At the time, Vitter stated, "I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that (Bill) Clinton should resign as well...."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-101][101][/url] Vitter's name was then discovered in the address book of the Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the "D.C. Madam"). (2007)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-CNN_2007-102][102][/url]
• Randall L. Tobias (R), Deputy Secretary of State and former "AIDS Czar" appointed by George W. Bush, stated that U.S. funds should be denied to countries that permitted prostitution.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-103][103][/url] He resigned on April 27, 2007, after confirming that he had been a customer of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the "D.C. Madam").[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-104][104][/url]
• Larry Craig (R-ID), a U.S. Senator for 18 years, was arrested on June 11, 2007 and charged with lewd conduct arising from his behavior in a men's restroom at the MinneapolisSaint Paul International Airport.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-105][105][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-106][106][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-107][107][/url] Craig pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct; he later unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his guilty plea.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-policeRpt-108][108][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-109][109][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-110][110][/url] He announced his resignation three months later on September 1, 2007, but changed his mind again, although he did not seek re-election in 2008. (2007)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-111][111][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-112][112][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-113][113][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-114][114][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-115][115][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-116][116][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-117][117][/url]
• Tim Mahoney, Representative (D-FL), was elected to the seat of Mark Foley, who had resigned following sexual harassment charges from his congressional interns. Mahoney ran on a campaign promise to make "a world that is safer, more moral". In October 2008, he admitted he placed his mistress on his staff and then fired her, saying, "You work at my pleasure." He then admitted to multiple other affairs.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-118][118][/url]
• Vito Fossella, Representative (R-NY), was arrested for drunken driving. Under questioning, the married Congressman and father of three admitted to an affair with Laura Fay that produced a daughter. (2008)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-119][119][/url]
• John Edwards, Senator (D-NC), admitted to an extramarital affair with actress and film producer Rielle Hunter, which produced a child, seriously undercutting his 2008 presidential campaign.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-120][120][/url] (see federal political scandals)
• John Ensign, Senator (R-NV), resigned his position as chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee on June 16, 2009, after admitting he had an affair with the wife of a close friend, both of whom were working on his campaign.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-121][121][/url] Under investigation, he then resigned his Senate seat 20 months early in 2011[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-122][122][/url] In 1998, Senator Ensign had called for President Bill Clinton (D) to resign after admitting to sexual acts with Monica Lewinsky. (2009)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-123][123][/url]
• Chip Pickering, Representative (R-MS): on July 16, 2009, it was announced that his wife had filed an alienation of affection lawsuit against a woman with whom Chip allegedly had an affair.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-124][124][/url] The lawsuit claimed the adulterous relationship ruined the Pickerings' marriage and his political career. (2009)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-125][125][/url]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States&action=edit§ion=9][/url]
Further information: 201718 United States political sexual scandals, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, and Stormy DanielsDonald Trump scandal

• Eric Massa, Representative (D-NY), resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted groping and tickling of multiple male staffers. He later stated on Fox News, "not only did I grope [a staffer], I tickled him until he couldn't breathe," (2010)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-126][126][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-127][127][/url]
• Mark Souder, Representative (R-IN), a staunch advocate of abstinence and family values,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-128][128][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-129][129][/url] resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted extramarital affair with a female staffer. (2010)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-130][130][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-131][131][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-132][132][/url]
• Chris Lee, Representative (R-NY), resigned hours after a news report that he had sent a shirtless picture of himself flexing his muscles to a woman via Craigslist, along with flirtatious e-mails.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-133][133][/url] He did not rely on a pseudonym or a false e-mail address but used his official Congressional e-mail for all communication. Lee said: "I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents.... I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-134][134][/url] (2011)
• Anthony Weiner, Representative (D-NY), admitted to sending sexually explicit photos of himself to several women through his Twitter account.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-135][135][/url] He resigned from Congress on June 16, 2011,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-WSJresign-136][136][/url] but kept sexting after his resignation.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-137][137][/url] (2011) On Nov 6, 2017, Weiner began serving a 21-month sentence for sexting a 15 year-old girl.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-138][138][/url]
• Scott DesJarlais, Representative (R-TN), admitted under oath to at least six affairs, including two affairs with his patients and staffers while he was a physician at Grandview Medical Center in Jasper, TN. Additionally, while running on a pro-life platform, DesJarlais made his ex-wife have two abortions, and tried to persuade a mistress who was his patient, into an abortion as well.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Michael_McAuliff-139][139][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-140][140][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-141][141][/url]
• David Wu, Representative (D-OR), resigned from the House of Representatives after being accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward a fundraiser's daughter. July 26, 2011.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-142][142][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-pope-143][143][/url]
• Herman Cain (R) 2012 Republican presidential candidate, was accused of sexual harassment by several women. These accusations eventually caused him to suspend his run for the presidential nomination (2012)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-politico-accused-144][144][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-145][145][/url] including Sharon Bialek, Karen Kraushaar, and having a 13-year affair with Ginger White.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-CBSmadison-146][146][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-147][147][/url] Donna Donella also reported possible inappropriate behavior.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-148][148][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-149][149][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-150][150][/url]
• Vance McAllister, Representative (R-LA), who is married and the father of five, was caught on surveillance camera deeply kissing a married staffer. Several prominent Republicans asked McAllister to resign. In response, he stated he would not seek re-election in 2016.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-151][151][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-152][152][/url] McCallister said: "There's no doubt I've fallen short and I'm asking for forgiveness. I'm asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve". (2014)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-153][153][/url]
• Matthew P. Pennell (R), a staff member for Tea Party-aligned US Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), was arrested on 17 counts of alleged child sex crimes. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison (2015)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-154][154][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-155][155][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-156][156][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-157][157][/url]
• Blake Farenthold, US Representative (R-TX) was reported to have paid $84,000 of taxpayer money, via the House of Representatives Office of Compliance, to settle a sexual harassment complaint from a former staffer. Farenthold's former communications director Lauren Greene sued the congressman in December 2014,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-158][158][/url] and a settlement was reached in 2015. The identity of Farenthold with respect to taxpayer involvement was made public in 2017. This was the first documented case of taxpayer funds being used to settle sexual harassment complaints against a member of Congress. (2014)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-159][159][/url]
• Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives (R-IL), pled guilty to structuring bank withdrawals in order to conceal deliberately-unspecified misconduct by Hastert against an unnamed individual years earlier.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-160][160][/url] At a sentencing hearing in October 2015, Hastert admitted that he had sexually abused boys while he worked as a high school wrestling coach decades earlier. (2015)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-DaveySmithSentencing-161][161][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-TribSentencing-162][162][/url]
• Donald Trump (R), the 45th President of the United States, was accused of sexual assault by 13 women during the 2016 election and he denied the allegations.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-163][163][/url] The allegations arose after The Washington Post released a 2005 video of Trump, recorded on a hot microphone by Access Hollywood, in which he brags about groping women.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-164][164][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-165][165][/url] "[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-166][166][/url] Trump himself renewed the controversy a year later by alleging that the video was fake,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-167][167][/url] to which Access Hollywood replied, "Let us make this perfectly clear the tape is very real. Remember his excuse at the time was 'locker-room talk.' He said every one of those words."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-168][168][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-169][169][/url]
• Tim Murphy, Representative (R-PA), had an extramarital affair with Shannon Edwards, a 32-year-old forensic psychologist. The pro-life Murphy asked Edwards to have an abortion after she became pregnant. The information was revealed as part of Murphy's divorce proceedings and published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette after it fought in Pennsylvania state court to have the documents unsealed. Murphy resigned his seat in Congress.
• Roy Moore U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama (R) was been accused by nine women[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-170][170][/url] of sexual misconduct with them when they were in their teens. The first of his accusers said that at the time, she was 14 years old, while he was 32.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-171][171][/url] Moore lost a special election for Alabama Senate following these accusations.
• Al Franken Senator (D-MN), was accused by radio newscaster Leeann Tweeden of forcibly kissing her as part of a skit and later groping her without consent during a U.S.O. tour in 2006. Tweeden produced photo evidence of the grope, taken by Franken when Tweeden was asleep. Franken admitted to the allegations and apologized for his actions and then resigned.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-172][172][/url]
• Joe Barton (R-TX) US Representative, acknowledged he took and emailed nude photos of himself in 2015, following their leak in November 2017.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-173][173][/url]
• John Conyers Jr. US Congressman (D-MI), A former staffer for Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan accused the Detroit Democrat of unwanted sexual advances. A woman who had settled a sexual harassment claim against him stated that the lawmaker had "violated" her body, repeatedly propositioned her for sex and asked her to touch his genitals. He then resigned.(2017)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-174][174][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-175][175][/url]
• Trent Franks (R-AZ) US Representative, was investigated by the House Ethics Commission about allegations of improper conduct. Before the study concluded, Franks abruptly resigned. (2017)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-176][176][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-WPfranks-177][177][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-cnn-resign-178][178][/url]
• Pat Meehan (R-PA) US Representative used tax payer funds to settle a sexual harassment claim by a female staffer. He was removed from the House Ethics Committee, but remains in office. (2018)[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-179][179][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-180][180][/url]
• Brett Kavanaugh, SCOTUS nominee, was accused of sexual assault by multiple women. After committee hearings concluded, some Senators required an FBI investigation as a condition for support. The investigation is set to begin the week of October 1, 2018.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#cite_note-New_York_Times-181][181][/url]

Good post contrario. Don't know if it will swing voters. But it certainly rallied each party's base.

jklburns said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

The accusations are going to fizzle....time for the Dems to play their new political card.

You will hear "temperament" 100x a day now.

---

I think it's a ridiculously partisan argument that is only going to play well to those already against him.

The idea that we have over 12 years of his temperament as a judge, but all of that should be discounted because of his righteous anger at being accused of gang-rape, is the very definition of a partisan (adj.) attack.

Feinstein opened up her questioning about the ridiculous gang-rape charges and he was supposed to just be non-pulsed by that? I would question his honesty if he sat there straight-faced with no emotion.

Did anyone read the questions he had to answer the day before the hearing, under oath, for the judiciary committee?-- it's disgusting, and probably a large reason why he was so incensed by the whole spectacle.

---

The only person whose behavior you can control is you.

If Kavanaugh knows he is not guilty of any of these charges, that certainty would play a lot better than the stonewalling he engaged in on Thursday.

I agree that Feinstein should not have asked about the Avanetti client's allegations.

That doesn't excuse the way kavanaugh behaves. Nor does it excuse the way Republicans have run this confirmation process and what they did to Merrick Garland. There are more than enough grievances on both sides that, when this is over, we need to revisit this process and try to make it more factual and less of a partisan slugfest. Because that's what this is, and Kavanaugh set himself squarely in the middle of the ring when he should have let Trump and GOP senators fight for him. Maybe he was afraid they wouldn't do it. Trump was dissembling after Ford's testimony.

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

The accusations are going to fizzle....time for the Dems to play their new political card.

You will hear "temperament" 100x a day now.

---

I think it's a ridiculously partisan argument that is only going to play well to those already against him.

The idea that we have over 12 years of his temperament as a judge, but all of that should be discounted because of his righteous anger at being accused of gang-rape, is the very definition of a partisan (adj.) attack.

Feinstein opened up her questioning about the ridiculous gang-rape charges and he was supposed to just be non-pulsed by that? I would question his honesty if he sat there straight-faced with no emotion.

Did anyone read the questions he had to answer the day before the hearing, under oath, for the judiciary committee?-- it's disgusting, and probably a large reason why he was so incensed by the whole spectacle.

---

The only person whose behavior you can control is you.

If Kavanaugh knows he is not guilty of any of these charges, that certainty would play a lot better than the stonewalling he engaged in on Thursday.

I agree that Feinstein should not have asked about the Avanetti client's allegations.

That doesn't excuse the way kavanaugh behaves. Nor does it excuse the way Republicans have run this confirmation process and what they did to Merrick Garland. There are more than enough grievances on both sides that, when this is over, we need to revisit this process and try to make it more factual and less of a partisan slugfest. Because that's what this is, and Kavanaugh set himself squarely in the middle of the ring when he should have let Trump and GOP senators fight for him. Maybe he was afraid they wouldn't do it. Trump was dissembling after Ford's testimony.

---

While I don't agree with your overall conclusion on this issue, I largely agree with what you've said here.

One point I do agree with regard to the issue of temperament, and one I've seen somewhat (not completely, but largely) ignored by most in the hyper-ventilating for each side, is that the one moment where Kavanaugh lost it was during the Klobacher questioning. His response to her was completely out-of-line. He did apologize afterward, but that is a perfect example of what Jinx is getting at re: temperament. I, personally, do not think it tips the scales in any way, but other people clearly think otherwise (although, I guarantee if you were previously for or against him, this doesn't change your ultimate conclusion on the matter).

With that said, re: the other point Jinx is making regarding how this process should be changed moving forward, I maintain that if more people -- on both sides -- presented themselves in this entire matter (not just on Thursday but also the prior hearings), like Klobachar, we'd be in a better place right now. I hope she runs in 2020. I won't vote for her because of her ultimate positions on policy, but I'd be incredibly tempted because I'm tired of unreasonable and histrionic politicians.

No wonder congress needs that slush fund for payouts....

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Thursday was a job interview.

---

It stopped being a mere job interview the minute he was accused of sexual assault. The original hearings were a job interview; the hearings on Thursday were trial by public opinion.

In the real world, if you went to a "job interview" and the interviewer said that someone has accused you of sexual assault, and despite the fact that we we have no corroborating evidence other than the word of the accuser, we aren't going to hire you because we don't like the "character" of someone who is accused and vehemently defends himself that accusation, that employer could get sued. And rightfully so.

But even more importantly, even in "job interviews" -- particularly those involving government positions -- due process applies.

---

To pound this nail a little further, when a person's life's work, reputation, and family is being publicly flogged and destroyed, it's not merely a "job interview." In this case, the standard of proof should absolutely be much closer to that of a trial. We were hearing under oath testimony, subject to potential felony prosecution, but somehow we are supposed to apply no minimum standard of proof at all. Bonkers.

Edit:

From Rich Lowry (so I can't take credit, but this is a good encapsulation of my thoughts):

Quote:

---

"You are walking into that circumstance, you have been accused of the most heinous crimes short of murder in the United States, with no meaningful [corroborating] evidence at all, with millions of people saying 'believe women, believe women." You better believe I would be breathing hot fire in those circumstances; my wife would be breathing hot fire in those circumstances. It's not a point where you sit down, fold your hands, and you look at the kangaroo court assembled in front of you and say 'Come, let us reason together." No. This is a moment where you draw the line in the sand and you declare who you are, and you call out those people who have been persecuting you unjustly. That is what you do....He had to do it."

---

jklburns said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Thursday was a job interview.

---

It stopped being a mere job interview the minute he was accused of sexual assault. The original hearings were a job interview; the hearings on Thursday were trial by public opinion.

In the real world, if you went to a "job interview" and the interviewer said that someone has accused you of sexual assault, and despite the fact that we we have no corroborating evidence other than the word of the accuser, we aren't going to hire you because we don't like the "character" of someone who is accused and vehemently defends himself that accusation, that employer could get sued. And rightfully so.

But even more importantly, even in "job interviews" -- particularly those involving government positions -- due process applies.

---

To pound this nail a little further, when a person's life's work, reputation, and family is being publicly flogged and destroyed, it's not merely a "job interview." In this case, the standard of proof should absolutely be much closer to that of a trial. We were hearing under oath testimony, subject to potential felony prosecution, but somehow we are supposed to apply no minimum standard of proof at all. Bonkers.

Edit:

From Rich Lowry (so I can't take credit, but this is a good encapsulation of my thoughts):

Quote:

---

"You are walking into that circumstance, you have been accused of the most heinous crimes short of murder in the United States, with no meaningful [corroborating] evidence at all, with millions of people saying 'believe women, believe women." You better believe I would be breathing hot fire in those circumstances; my wife would be breathing hot fire in those circumstances. It's not a point where you sit down, fold your hands, and you look at the kangaroo court assembled in front of you and say 'Come, let us reason together." No. This is a moment where you draw the line in the sand and you declare who you are, and you call out those people who have been persecuting you unjustly. That is what you do....He had to do it."

---

---

What happened Thursday was like testimony in front of a grand jury to get an indictment.

I think the GOP would have done Kavanaugh a favor by sparing him that circus and having the FBI do a thorough investigation beforehand. THEY controlled the process, not the Democrats, who were having trouble getting Republicans to provide copies of basic documents being referred to during the process.

There is no question that this was a horrible process.

But I reject the notion that Democrats were solely responsible. The way Republicans have run this confirmation(a complete clusterf--k) has been abominable. Once a name could actually be attached to Blasey Ford's allegations of misconduct, an investigation was needed. The GOP gambled that Blasey Ford--now a California girl and obviously extremely naive about the political process surrounding these nominations (her hope in coming forward was to keep Kavanaugh from being selected off the short list--and apparently he wasn't the GOP's first choice but was Trump's)--would not be credible. They lost that gamble.

I realize that many of the men testifying on this forum DON'T find her credible. I'm about a decade older than Blasey Ford, who surfs, but I have 3 groups similar to her "beach friends"--the ski ladies, a book club and a walking group. Stories such as Blasey Ford's come up periodically, and they're often elicited by a news event--either a local politician or judge who has some dirt in his past or a "me, too" kind of confession. The women I know who have not themselves had some sort of miserable experience like Blasey Ford's know someone who has--a sister, cousin, friend or schoolmate. Or, in a couple of sad cases, a mother or grandmother. One friend's mother married at 16 to escape the abuse of her father.

And it's still happening. The cousin of one of my daughter's best grade school friends, then a sophomore in high school, was lured out her window one night by two male friends. Sneaking out seemed like it would be so much fun! And these were friends, not someone she was dating. They took her to a third friend's divorced father's house and offered her something to drink. She asked for pomegranite juice. They spiked it with something that knocked her out. Two of them raped her while she was unconscious. They took her back home, still unconscious, and got her back into her bed at home, where one of them assaulted her again. She woke up vomiting (one thing that made her parents particularly angry was that she could have asperated vomit and died) and sore and not realizing what had happened. She threw up for 2 days. By the time she had stopped being sick, the story was out on Facebook--only, of course, it was that she was a sl-t and the whole thing was consensual. She had showered several times by then; a rape exam was not possible. The environment at her prestigious all-girls school was so toxic her parents sent her to boarding school for the remainder of high school. The father at the house where she was drugged said he was not surprised that had happened because the girl was so beautiful. Rumor had it that he was complicit. One of the perps was kicked out of the prestigious boys school he attended. The other two claimed they had bragged about things that had't really happened on FB. My guess is that smart moms didn't let their daughters or sons anywhere near those boys, but that was the only consequence they faced. I had to discuss this situation with my daughter when she was in the 5th grade, because it devastated her friend's family.

So, for lots of us, this just another variation of horrible stories we have heard before. That Blasey Ford had to tell hers on national television, with millions of people watching, under oath in front of a senate committee strikes me as just as cruel as Brett Kavanaugh having to appear before the same committee and defend his honor and integrity.

The GOP should have taken the time to investigate the allegation rather than presiding over a circus.
THEY are to blame for that disaster on Thursday.

Jinx 2 said:

---

The GOP should have taken the time to investigate the allegation rather than presiding over a circus.
THEY are to blame for that disaster on Thursday.

---

This is where your logic breaks down. It's like history began anew each day of last week. It was Ford's attorneys that requested the hearing saying that she was anxious to testify (Sept. 17th):

And then when GOP said, ok, we will let you testify (at the place and method of your choosing!), only then did they start requesting the FBI investigation ("it would only take 3 days!").

It was Ford's attorneys who said she wanted to testify in DC in public. There is no dispute that she could have avoided this whole hearing spectacle had she accepted the offer for the judiciary committee to fly to her.

Ford has gotten almost every request granted. She now even gets a FBI investigation. The only thing she was denied is Republicans insisted on hiring Mitchell and having Ford go first at the hearing. Other than the format of the hearing itself (which was highly and publicly negotiated by both sides), there is not one process mis-step you can lay solely at the feet of Senate Republicans in how this was handled.

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

The GOP should have taken the time to investigate the allegation rather than presiding over a circus.
THEY are to blame for that disaster on Thursday.

---

This is where your logic breaks down. It's like history began anew each day of last week. It was Ford's attorneys that requested the hearing saying that she was anxious to testify (Sept. 17th):

And then when GOP said, ok, we will let you testify (at the place and method of your choosing!), only then did they start requesting the FBI investigation ("it would only take 3 days!").

It was Ford's attorneys who said she wanted to testify in DC in public. There is no dispute that she could have avoided this whole hearing spectacle had she accepted the offer for the judiciary committee to fly to her.

Ford has gotten almost every request granted. She now even gets a FBI investigation. The only thing she was denied is Republicans insisted on hiring Mitchell and having Ford go first at the hearing. Other than the format of the hearing itself (which was highly and publicly negotiated by both sides), there is not one process mis-step you can lay solely at the feet of Senate Republicans in how this was handled.

---

The GOP could have said, "Is your client willing to participate in an FBI investigation?"

THEY chose to make this process into theater by having her testify INSTEAD of launching an investigation. That may ultimately really hurt Kavanaugh.

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

The GOP should have taken the time to investigate the allegation rather than presiding over a circus.
THEY are to blame for that disaster on Thursday.

---

This is where your logic breaks down. It's like history began anew each day of last week. It was Ford's attorneys that requested the hearing saying that she was anxious to testify (Sept. 17th):

And then when GOP said, ok, we will let you testify (at the place and method of your choosing!), only then did they start requesting the FBI investigation ("it would only take 3 days!").

It was Ford's attorneys who said she wanted to testify in DC in public. There is no dispute that she could have avoided this whole hearing spectacle had she accepted the offer for the judiciary committee to fly to her.

Ford has gotten almost every request granted. She now even gets a FBI investigation. The only thing she was denied is Republicans insisted on hiring Mitchell and having Ford go first at the hearing. Other than the format of the hearing itself (which was highly and publicly negotiated by both sides), there is not one process mis-step you can lay solely at the feet of Senate Republicans in how this was handled.

---

The GOP could have said, "Is your client willing to participate in an FBI investigation?"

THEY chose to make this process into theater by having her testify INSTEAD of launching an investigation. That may ultimately really hurt Kavanaugh.

---

Yeah, that dog doesn't hunt. You do know that the Senate Judiciary Committee has it's own investigative operation, right? And that once they were told (the same day it leaked out of the press), they immediately started investigating. It's the Judiciary Committee's investigators that make actual determinations to recommend to the Judiciary Committee Senators (to the extent that the FBI conducts an investigation, they do not come to conclusions, they just hand the 302s over to the Committee).

The only reason they reopened the hearings is because of Dr. Ford's request. It wouldn't have been done without the pressure from Ford's attorneys and the media.

From Gregg Nunziata, a former chief nominations counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, https://www.weeklystandard.com/gregg-nunziata/how-the-democrats-could-have-handled-the-allegations-against-kavanaugh

Quote:

---

"When Senator Dianne Feinstein received very serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, she could haveand should havehandled those concerns through the committee's normal protocols. This process, which applies not just to Supreme Court nominees but to hundreds of judicial and Justice Department appointments, is specifically designed to protect the interests of both accusers and nominees. The process is both confidential and bipartisan. Its goal is to pursue the truth, not political advantage. That Senator Feinstein inexplicably chose not to handle the serious allegation Dr. Christine Blasey Ford made against Judge Kavanaugh according to these procedures has had terrible consequences for all the individuals involved and has done lasting damage to the Senate and the Supreme Court as institutions."


The political debate around the Kavanaugh confirmation has generated a great deal of confusion about the respective roles of the Senate and the FBI in investigating the background of judicial nominees. Here's how it really works. For every judicial nominee and every nominee for a politically appointed position in the Justice Department, the FBI conducts a "background investigation." The FBI does not evaluate the nominee's fitness for service or make a recommendation on his or her suitability for confirmation. It gathers non-public facts, conducts interviews, and compiles a file on the nominee. That file is transmitted to the White House and later the Senate, after a nomination is officially made.

In the Senate, the FBI file is kept locked in a safe. It can be accessed only by a handful of staffers, all of whom have top-secret security clearances and all of whom agree to treat the files as though they contained state secrets. On top of that, witnesses who submit information to the FBI have the option of doing so completely anonymously, so even the cleared Senate staffers do not know who furnished the information.

Although the vast majority of nominees have exemplary background files, evidence of potential concern arises with some regularity. When the FBI interviews dozens of former associates and neighbors covering a nominee's entire lifetime, it is not uncommon that one of those associates has something unflattering to say. Sometimes, the unflattering information crosses the line and becomes potential evidence that, if true, would disqualify a nominee from a lifetime appointment to the bench. Examples of potentially disqualifying evidence include sexual harassment, physical and sexual violence, racial prejudice, substance abuse, and pervasive dishonesty.

If either the Republican or the Democrat staffer reviewing an FBI file find anything of concern, the committee conducts additional investigation. Sometimes, especially if it finds gaps in the file, it might ask the FBI to conduct additional interviews. More often, the committee's investigators will conduct interviews themselves. (Lying to the committee investigators, like lying to the FBI or lying under oath, is a crime punishable by prison time.) Once the staff has completed its work, it reports the results to senators who may decide to conduct interviews themselves. Ultimately, on the basis of this investigation, the senators decide whether or not a nomination should move forward.

...

Today Senate Democrats say that the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh require an FBI "investigation," even though, had they followed standard procedure, the FBI likely would have conducted interviews two months ago. Senate Democrats claim we need the FBI to get to the bottom of these allegations, even though this is not the role of the FBI. The FBI does not assess the character and fitness of nominees, the Senate does. Senate Democrats fret about the possible damage done to Dr. Ford's reputation in a public, political process (and rightly express concerns about the threats that those in public controversies inevitably receive), even though they had at their disposal a confidential bipartisan process to avoid all of this.

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

The GOP should have taken the time to investigate the allegation rather than presiding over a circus.
THEY are to blame for that disaster on Thursday.

---

This is where your logic breaks down. It's like history began anew each day of last week. It was Ford's attorneys that requested the hearing saying that she was anxious to testify (Sept. 17th):

And then when GOP said, ok, we will let you testify (at the place and method of your choosing!), only then did they start requesting the FBI investigation ("it would only take 3 days!").

It was Ford's attorneys who said she wanted to testify in DC in public. There is no dispute that she could have avoided this whole hearing spectacle had she accepted the offer for the judiciary committee to fly to her.

Ford has gotten almost every request granted. She now even gets a FBI investigation. The only thing she was denied is Republicans insisted on hiring Mitchell and having Ford go first at the hearing. Other than the format of the hearing itself (which was highly and publicly negotiated by both sides), there is not one process mis-step you can lay solely at the feet of Senate Republicans in how this was handled.

---

The GOP could have said, "Is your client willing to participate in an FBI investigation?"

THEY chose to make this process into theater by having her testify INSTEAD of launching an investigation. That may ultimately really hurt Kavanaugh.

---

Yeah, that dog doesn't hunt. You do know that the Senate Judiciary Committee has it's own investigative operation, right? And that once they were told (the same day it leaked out of the press), they immediately started investigating. It's the Judiciary Committee's investigators that make actual determinations to recommend to the Judiciary Committee Senators (to the extent that the FBI conducts an investigation, they do not come to conclusions, they just hand the 302s over to the Committee).

The only reason they reopened the hearings is because of Dr. Ford's request. It wouldn't have been done without the pressure from Ford's attorneys and the media.

From Gregg Nunziata, a former chief nominations counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, https://www.weeklystandard.com/gregg-nunziata/how-the-democrats-could-have-handled-the-allegations-against-kavanaugh

Quote:

---

"When Senator Dianne Feinstein received very serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, she could haveand should havehandled those concerns through the committee's normal protocols. This process, which applies not just to Supreme Court nominees but to hundreds of judicial and Justice Department appointments, is specifically designed to protect the interests of both accusers and nominees. The process is both confidential and bipartisan. Its goal is to pursue the truth, not political advantage. That Senator Feinstein inexplicably chose not to handle the serious allegation Dr. Christine Blasey Ford made against Judge Kavanaugh according to these procedures has had terrible consequences for all the individuals involved and has done lasting damage to the Senate and the Supreme Court as institutions."


The political debate around the Kavanaugh confirmation has generated a great deal of confusion about the respective roles of the Senate and the FBI in investigating the background of judicial nominees. Here's how it really works. For every judicial nominee and every nominee for a politically appointed position in the Justice Department, the FBI conducts a "background investigation." The FBI does not evaluate the nominee's fitness for service or make a recommendation on his or her suitability for confirmation. It gathers non-public facts, conducts interviews, and compiles a file on the nominee. That file is transmitted to the White House and later the Senate, after a nomination is officially made.

In the Senate, the FBI file is kept locked in a safe. It can be accessed only by a handful of staffers, all of whom have top-secret security clearances and all of whom agree to treat the files as though they contained state secrets. On top of that, witnesses who submit information to the FBI have the option of doing so completely anonymously, so even the cleared Senate staffers do not know who furnished the information.

Although the vast majority of nominees have exemplary background files, evidence of potential concern arises with some regularity. When the FBI interviews dozens of former associates and neighbors covering a nominee's entire lifetime, it is not uncommon that one of those associates has something unflattering to say. Sometimes, the unflattering information crosses the line and becomes potential evidence that, if true, would disqualify a nominee from a lifetime appointment to the bench. Examples of potentially disqualifying evidence include sexual harassment, physical and sexual violence, racial prejudice, substance abuse, and pervasive dishonesty.

If either the Republican or the Democrat staffer reviewing an FBI file find anything of concern, the committee conducts additional investigation. Sometimes, especially if it finds gaps in the file, it might ask the FBI to conduct additional interviews. More often, the committee's investigators will conduct interviews themselves. (Lying to the committee investigators, like lying to the FBI or lying under oath, is a crime punishable by prison time.) Once the staff has completed its work, it reports the results to senators who may decide to conduct interviews themselves. Ultimately, on the basis of this investigation, the senators decide whether or not a nomination should move forward.

...

Today Senate Democrats say that the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh require an FBI "investigation," even though, had they followed standard procedure, the FBI likely would have conducted interviews two months ago. Senate Democrats claim we need the FBI to get to the bottom of these allegations, even though this is not the role of the FBI. The FBI does not assess the character and fitness of nominees, the Senate does. Senate Democrats fret about the possible damage done to Dr. Ford's reputation in a public, political process (and rightly express concerns about the threats that those in public controversies inevitably receive), even though they had at their disposal a confidential bipartisan process to avoid all of this.

---

---

The Republicans are calling the shots.

They decided what papers to release and when.

Feinstein didn't have the consent of the victim to relase her name before it came out via a leak. I personally don't believe Feinstein leaked it. It may have been leaked from her office, via a staff member, or it may also have somehow become public through her contact with the Washington Post, where she reported her allegations to a tipline. Both Feinstein and the Post were holding off on publishing because Blasey Ford didn't want her name to be public.

It's also apparent that some in the GOP believe that once Blasey Ford contacted Feinsteing and the Washington Post, she forfeited her right to privacy on this issue. Feinstein and the WaPo appear to have respected her request not to go public, and Feinstein was willing to have the allegations NOT come out in the committee process. ONLY when reporters started showing up at Blasey Ford's home, office and in her classroom, where one approached her after a class she was teaching, did she realized her hopes of remaining anonymous were unrealistic.

The GOP calls and adjourns meetings. They could have gone ahead and authorized an FBI investigation. Which is what they ended up doing anyway.

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

The GOP should have taken the time to investigate the allegation rather than presiding over a circus.
THEY are to blame for that disaster on Thursday.

---

This is where your logic breaks down. It's like history began anew each day of last week. It was Ford's attorneys that requested the hearing saying that she was anxious to testify (Sept. 17th):

And then when GOP said, ok, we will let you testify (at the place and method of your choosing!), only then did they start requesting the FBI investigation ("it would only take 3 days!").

It was Ford's attorneys who said she wanted to testify in DC in public. There is no dispute that she could have avoided this whole hearing spectacle had she accepted the offer for the judiciary committee to fly to her.

Ford has gotten almost every request granted. She now even gets a FBI investigation. The only thing she was denied is Republicans insisted on hiring Mitchell and having Ford go first at the hearing. Other than the format of the hearing itself (which was highly and publicly negotiated by both sides), there is not one process mis-step you can lay solely at the feet of Senate Republicans in how this was handled.

---

The GOP could have said, "Is your client willing to participate in an FBI investigation?"

THEY chose to make this process into theater by having her testify INSTEAD of launching an investigation. That may ultimately really hurt Kavanaugh.

---

Yeah, that dog doesn't hunt. You do know that the Senate Judiciary Committee has it's own investigative operation, right? And that once they were told (the same day it leaked out of the press), they immediately started investigating. It's the Judiciary Committee's investigators that make actual determinations to recommend to the Judiciary Committee Senators (to the extent that the FBI conducts an investigation, they do not come to conclusions, they just hand the 302s over to the Committee).

The only reason they reopened the hearings is because of Dr. Ford's request. It wouldn't have been done without the pressure from Ford's attorneys and the media.

From Gregg Nunziata, a former chief nominations counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, https://www.weeklystandard.com/gregg-nunziata/how-the-democrats-could-have-handled-the-allegations-against-kavanaugh

Quote:

---

"When Senator Dianne Feinstein received very serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, she could haveand should havehandled those concerns through the committee's normal protocols. This process, which applies not just to Supreme Court nominees but to hundreds of judicial and Justice Department appointments, is specifically designed to protect the interests of both accusers and nominees. The process is both confidential and bipartisan. Its goal is to pursue the truth, not political advantage. That Senator Feinstein inexplicably chose not to handle the serious allegation Dr. Christine Blasey Ford made against Judge Kavanaugh according to these procedures has had terrible consequences for all the individuals involved and has done lasting damage to the Senate and the Supreme Court as institutions."


The political debate around the Kavanaugh confirmation has generated a great deal of confusion about the respective roles of the Senate and the FBI in investigating the background of judicial nominees. Here's how it really works. For every judicial nominee and every nominee for a politically appointed position in the Justice Department, the FBI conducts a "background investigation." The FBI does not evaluate the nominee's fitness for service or make a recommendation on his or her suitability for confirmation. It gathers non-public facts, conducts interviews, and compiles a file on the nominee. That file is transmitted to the White House and later the Senate, after a nomination is officially made.

In the Senate, the FBI file is kept locked in a safe. It can be accessed only by a handful of staffers, all of whom have top-secret security clearances and all of whom agree to treat the files as though they contained state secrets. On top of that, witnesses who submit information to the FBI have the option of doing so completely anonymously, so even the cleared Senate staffers do not know who furnished the information.

Although the vast majority of nominees have exemplary background files, evidence of potential concern arises with some regularity. When the FBI interviews dozens of former associates and neighbors covering a nominee's entire lifetime, it is not uncommon that one of those associates has something unflattering to say. Sometimes, the unflattering information crosses the line and becomes potential evidence that, if true, would disqualify a nominee from a lifetime appointment to the bench. Examples of potentially disqualifying evidence include sexual harassment, physical and sexual violence, racial prejudice, substance abuse, and pervasive dishonesty.

If either the Republican or the Democrat staffer reviewing an FBI file find anything of concern, the committee conducts additional investigation. Sometimes, especially if it finds gaps in the file, it might ask the FBI to conduct additional interviews. More often, the committee's investigators will conduct interviews themselves. (Lying to the committee investigators, like lying to the FBI or lying under oath, is a crime punishable by prison time.) Once the staff has completed its work, it reports the results to senators who may decide to conduct interviews themselves. Ultimately, on the basis of this investigation, the senators decide whether or not a nomination should move forward.

...

Today Senate Democrats say that the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh require an FBI "investigation," even though, had they followed standard procedure, the FBI likely would have conducted interviews two months ago. Senate Democrats claim we need the FBI to get to the bottom of these allegations, even though this is not the role of the FBI. The FBI does not assess the character and fitness of nominees, the Senate does. Senate Democrats fret about the possible damage done to Dr. Ford's reputation in a public, political process (and rightly express concerns about the threats that those in public controversies inevitably receive), even though they had at their disposal a confidential bipartisan process to avoid all of this.

---

---

The Republicans are calling the shots.

They decided what papers to release and when.

Feinstein didn't have the consent of the victim to relase her name before it came out via a leak. I personally don't believe Feinstein leaked it. It may have been leaked from her office, via a staff member, or it may also have somehow become public through her contact with the Washington Post, where she reported her allegations to a tipline. Both Feinstein and the Post were holding off on publishing because Blasey Ford didn't want her name to be public.

The GOP calls and adjourns meetings. They could have gone ahead and authorized an FBI investigation. Which is what they ended up doing anyway.

---

And this is where it's obvious that you didn't read what I posted. There was an immediate investigation -- whether or not the FBI is involved is a red herring. The fact that the FBI is involved now is a concession. If Ford had not demanded to testify, the investigation by the Judiciary Committee would have happened regardless.

As far as who leaked the letter, that's irrelevant to what we were discussing; but on that point, it was either Ford, Ford's attorneys, Feinstein, or Feinstein's office. Your post insinuates that it was the Republicans "calling the shot...[deciding] what papers to release and when," and thus implies they are responsible for the leak (with your next paragraph discussing the leak). That's not factual.

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

The GOP should have taken the time to investigate the allegation rather than presiding over a circus.
THEY are to blame for that disaster on Thursday.

---

This is where your logic breaks down. It's like history began anew each day of last week. It was Ford's attorneys that requested the hearing saying that she was anxious to testify (Sept. 17th):

And then when GOP said, ok, we will let you testify (at the place and method of your choosing!), only then did they start requesting the FBI investigation ("it would only take 3 days!").

It was Ford's attorneys who said she wanted to testify in DC in public. There is no dispute that she could have avoided this whole hearing spectacle had she accepted the offer for the judiciary committee to fly to her.

Ford has gotten almost every request granted. She now even gets a FBI investigation. The only thing she was denied is Republicans insisted on hiring Mitchell and having Ford go first at the hearing. Other than the format of the hearing itself (which was highly and publicly negotiated by both sides), there is not one process mis-step you can lay solely at the feet of Senate Republicans in how this was handled.

---

The GOP could have said, "Is your client willing to participate in an FBI investigation?"

THEY chose to make this process into theater by having her testify INSTEAD of launching an investigation. That may ultimately really hurt Kavanaugh.

---

Yeah, that dog doesn't hunt. You do know that the Senate Judiciary Committee has it's own investigative operation, right? And that once they were told (the same day it leaked out of the press), they immediately started investigating. It's the Judiciary Committee's investigators that make actual determinations to recommend to the Judiciary Committee Senators (to the extent that the FBI conducts an investigation, they do not come to conclusions, they just hand the 302s over to the Committee).

The only reason they reopened the hearings is because of Dr. Ford's request. It wouldn't have been done without the pressure from Ford's attorneys and the media.

From Gregg Nunziata, a former chief nominations counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, https://www.weeklystandard.com/gregg-nunziata/how-the-democrats-could-have-handled-the-allegations-against-kavanaugh

Quote:

---

"When Senator Dianne Feinstein received very serious allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, she could haveand should havehandled those concerns through the committee's normal protocols. This process, which applies not just to Supreme Court nominees but to hundreds of judicial and Justice Department appointments, is specifically designed to protect the interests of both accusers and nominees. The process is both confidential and bipartisan. Its goal is to pursue the truth, not political advantage. That Senator Feinstein inexplicably chose not to handle the serious allegation Dr. Christine Blasey Ford made against Judge Kavanaugh according to these procedures has had terrible consequences for all the individuals involved and has done lasting damage to the Senate and the Supreme Court as institutions."


The political debate around the Kavanaugh confirmation has generated a great deal of confusion about the respective roles of the Senate and the FBI in investigating the background of judicial nominees. Here's how it really works. For every judicial nominee and every nominee for a politically appointed position in the Justice Department, the FBI conducts a "background investigation." The FBI does not evaluate the nominee's fitness for service or make a recommendation on his or her suitability for confirmation. It gathers non-public facts, conducts interviews, and compiles a file on the nominee. That file is transmitted to the White House and later the Senate, after a nomination is officially made.

In the Senate, the FBI file is kept locked in a safe. It can be accessed only by a handful of staffers, all of whom have top-secret security clearances and all of whom agree to treat the files as though they contained state secrets. On top of that, witnesses who submit information to the FBI have the option of doing so completely anonymously, so even the cleared Senate staffers do not know who furnished the information.

Although the vast majority of nominees have exemplary background files, evidence of potential concern arises with some regularity. When the FBI interviews dozens of former associates and neighbors covering a nominee's entire lifetime, it is not uncommon that one of those associates has something unflattering to say. Sometimes, the unflattering information crosses the line and becomes potential evidence that, if true, would disqualify a nominee from a lifetime appointment to the bench. Examples of potentially disqualifying evidence include sexual harassment, physical and sexual violence, racial prejudice, substance abuse, and pervasive dishonesty.

If either the Republican or the Democrat staffer reviewing an FBI file find anything of concern, the committee conducts additional investigation. Sometimes, especially if it finds gaps in the file, it might ask the FBI to conduct additional interviews. More often, the committee's investigators will conduct interviews themselves. (Lying to the committee investigators, like lying to the FBI or lying under oath, is a crime punishable by prison time.) Once the staff has completed its work, it reports the results to senators who may decide to conduct interviews themselves. Ultimately, on the basis of this investigation, the senators decide whether or not a nomination should move forward.

...

Today Senate Democrats say that the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh require an FBI "investigation," even though, had they followed standard procedure, the FBI likely would have conducted interviews two months ago. Senate Democrats claim we need the FBI to get to the bottom of these allegations, even though this is not the role of the FBI. The FBI does not assess the character and fitness of nominees, the Senate does. Senate Democrats fret about the possible damage done to Dr. Ford's reputation in a public, political process (and rightly express concerns about the threats that those in public controversies inevitably receive), even though they had at their disposal a confidential bipartisan process to avoid all of this.

---

---

The Republicans are calling the shots.

They decided what papers to release and when.

Feinstein didn't have the consent of the victim to relase her name before it came out via a leak. I personally don't believe Feinstein leaked it. It may have been leaked from her office, via a staff member, or it may also have somehow become public through her contact with the Washington Post, where she reported her allegations to a tipline. Both Feinstein and the Post were holding off on publishing because Blasey Ford didn't want her name to be public.

The GOP calls and adjourns meetings. They could have gone ahead and authorized an FBI investigation. Which is what they ended up doing anyway.

---

And this is where it's obvious that you didn't read what I posted. There was an immediate investigation -- whether or not the FBI is involved is a red herring. The fact that the FBI is involved now is a concession. If Ford had not demanded to testify, the investigation by the Judiciary Committee would have happened regardless.

As far as who leaked the letter, that's irrelevant to what we were discussing; but on that point, it was either Ford, Ford's attorneys, Feinstein, or Feinstein's office. Your post insinuates that it was the Republicans "calling the shot...[deciding] what papers to release and when," and thus implies they are responsible for the leak (with your next paragraph discussing the leak). That's not factual.

---

It was not my intent to imply the Republicans leaked Blasey Ford's allegations. Nor is that logical, as it would obviously be better for Kavanaugh and the GOP if her allegations had remained anonymous. They obviously did not.

And the previous investigations to which you refer were BEFORE Blasey Ford's allegations came to light. I understand your point that, if Feinstein had brought the allegations forward sooner, they could have been included in those investigations. But Feinstein was hampered by the fact that, by the choice of the victim, the allegations were anonymous. She could not bring them forward without outing the victim. Who was naive enough to think that, just by telling her story, she could keep Kavanaugh on the short list and the GOP would choose someone else as the next SCOTUS justice. (The election of Donald Trump should have given her a big clue as to how well that would work out. The GOP clearly does not care how crude or crass or sexist or adulterous or honest their candidate is as long as he can win an election.)

Only when the Blasey was willing to go on record with her allegations did it become possible for Feinstein to present them to the committee. And that was after the "investigations" to which you refer had taken place.

My post was intended to advance the point that once her allegations came to light, the Republicans could have immediately called for an FBI investigation and did not.

They did not because they wanted to vote on the confirmation last week and swear Kavanaugh in at the beginning of the SCOTUS term today.

They apparently also thought the allegations weren't credible and that Blasey Ford would be an ineffective witness. That has proved to be a bad call. The allegations are credible to Democrats and to most women who have had similar experiences or know someone else who has (a depressingly large number). They are not credible to Republicans and Trump supporters, including conservative women who want Kavanaugh confirmed because of his stance on abortion.

So the horrible theater of Thursday was, indeed, their choice--because they wanted to rush a vote. They are STILL trying to rush the vote by performing as limited an investigation as they possible can, and the investigation is clearly only for political cover, not because they want to uncover the truth of whether Kavanaugh has, indeed, gotten abusive when drunk.

Republicans have been driving this train too fast. If it's derailed, they own it.

Facts - in the hearing many Dems were asking for just a short FBI investigation that maybe lasts 3 days to a week. Of course now they are contradicting those statements w/ their new narrative that Trump & GOP are 'limiting' the investigation. Of course media plays along instead of calling out their hypocrisy & lies.

jklburns said:

---

jklburns said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Thursday was a job interview.

---

It stopped being a mere job interview the minute he was accused of sexual assault. The original hearings were a job interview; the hearings on Thursday were trial by public opinion.

In the real world, if you went to a "job interview" and the interviewer said that someone has accused you of sexual assault, and despite the fact that we we have no corroborating evidence other than the word of the accuser, we aren't going to hire you because we don't like the "character" of someone who is accused and vehemently defends himself that accusation, that employer could get sued. And rightfully so.

But even more importantly, even in "job interviews" -- particularly those involving government positions -- due process applies.

---

To pound this nail a little further, when a person's life's work, reputation, and family is being publicly flogged and destroyed, it's not merely a "job interview." In this case, the standard of proof should absolutely be much closer to that of a trial. We were hearing under oath testimony, subject to potential felony prosecution, but somehow we are supposed to apply no minimum standard of proof at all. Bonkers.

Edit:

From Rich Lowry (so I can't take credit, but this is a good encapsulation of my thoughts):

Quote:

---

"You are walking into that circumstance, you have been accused of the most heinous crimes short of murder in the United States, with no meaningful [corroborating] evidence at all, with millions of people saying 'believe women, believe women." You better believe I would be breathing hot fire in those circumstances; my wife would be breathing hot fire in those circumstances. It's not a point where you sit down, fold your hands, and you look at the kangaroo court assembled in front of you and say 'Come, let us reason together." No. This is a moment where you draw the line in the sand and you declare who you are, and you call out those people who have been persecuting you unjustly. That is what you do....He had to do it."

---

---

Prosecution was never the goal. Blasey Ford came forward as a character witness. Because of her experience, she believed Brett Kavanaugh should not sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I don't think anyone expected an assault that happened more than 30 years ago to be prosecuted. Blasey Ford didn't even want it prosecuted in the court of public opinion. She was hoping to stop his nomination, not his confirmation.

What we did expect was for Republicans to nominate and confirm a Supreme Court Justice worthy of the seat.

Kavanaugh's rant on Thursday proved he is too partisan. Since that's why he was nominated in the first place, Republicans are going to keep pushing for his confirmation unless they realize they don't have the votes. In which case they'll drop Kavanaugh like a hot potato, but use his miserable confirmation process to rev up their base.

Heads, they win. Tails, they win.

riflebear said:

---

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

If anyone wonders whatever happened to Dale Steele, he's operating the concession stand in the background.

The only fact that matters:

Hillary Clinton's campaign manager who said investigations regarding Benghazi and her e-mail security were pointless and political.....wants to investigate a 16 year old's yearbook quotes.

Why the FBI Should Investigate 'Boofing'
Small lies matter especially when you're asking to be on the Supreme Court.

By BRIAN FALLON AND CHRISTOPHER KANG
October 01, 2018

Jack Bauer said:

---

Hillary Clinton's campaign manager who said investigations regarding Benghazi and her e-mail security were pointless and political.....wants to investigate a 16 year old's yearbook quotes.

Why the FBI Should Investigate 'Boofing'
Small lies matter especially when you're asking to be on the Supreme Court.

By BRIAN FALLON AND CHRISTOPHER KANG
October 01, 2018

---

Forbes magazine to the rescue re: boofing: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2018/09/29/what-exactly-is-boofing-and-why-you-should-never-do-it/#70d214ee2a94

"Butt chugging" - well that proves he is a monster.