Quote:
Emma Lou Puro I am a social worker of over 40 years of practice interviewing children and adults regarding child abuse and neglect. I cannot say this is a fact, but whenever clients deny behavior they have been accused of, I consider it problematic if they display any of the following:

1. They become defensive in an intense and self righteous manner.
2. They challenge the interviewer personally, questioning my past regarding the topic; as if this behavior is a norm even of it is wrong.
3. They blame everyone for the situation they are in, or try to shift the blame.
4. They ALWAYS work themselves up into a frenzy, crying in frustration and anger that they are being victimized.
5. They angrily lash out about being a victim of “the system” or name specific persons or organizations out to get them.
6. Their defense is overly emotional....almost scary, usually involving spitting out words and turning red faced.
7. They use their social status and past accomplishments as proof they are not “that type” of person that would do such a thing.
7. They indigently refuse tests, studies or investigations, even if it would prove their innocence or improve their standing in the case.

Strikes me those are the criteria used by someone who had already decided to find someone guilty regardless of the evidence.

I disagree - those are definite signs that the individual isn't being open and is trying to avoid answering.

To paraphrase one of the favourite rightie rationalisations: What are you worried about if you did nothing wrong, Mr. Kavanaugh?

I disagree with jim's comment too ~ anyone with any kind of disease or limitation tends to share behavior criteria of others with the same markers ~ I'd be far more concerned if a 40+-year veteran of the trenches did not recognize those markers ~

Sooz

EXACTLY, oskar! ~ Kavanaugh's performance at the hearing was totally scripted "white privilege" theater ~

Sooz

Just read the scope of the FBI investigation will be severely hindered even more than first imagined. trump has limited who they can talk to, what they can follow up on, etc. This is such a total sham and they will get away with it. For sure now, they know he is not suited for the job, but want him in there anyway to promote their political agenda - so disgusting and devoid of any ethical or moral boundaries. I guess "right is might" is just a cliche after all

That's right, KB.

White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
The FBI has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, a White House official confirmed to NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-investigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061


I'm not holding my breath, but I hope all this blows up in the Republicans faces. Payback for what they did with Merrick Garland.

I hope so too, for even more reasons than Garland - for all the lies and underhanded conniving tactics they have used since trump became president. Like you though, I am not holding my breath - they seem to get away with everything.

I disagree - those are definite signs that the individual isn't being open and is trying to avoid answering.

Okay, so if I falsely accuse you of something and you get pissed off it automatically means you're guilty.

His behavior goes far beyond being "pissed off". Besides, this is a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. If he's going to act like this when he's being questioned about his past he's definitely not what I'd call "judgeship worthy".

I agree. I think someone's behavior and the perception of that behavior play a major role in interviews for regular jobs, doubly so when it means a job for life. That said, it does not mean if there are serious allegations they should not be investigated, and the person dismissed automatically.

Whether we like it or not, perception and the demeanor of a person counts as much if not more whether someone gets a job; in situations where there may be many candidates available with equal qualifications, it probably counts for more.

No, it doesn't mean one is guilty.

The way he has dealt with these accusations speaks volumes, even if he isn't guilty.

Kavanaugh is being considered for the highest court in the nation. These justices should be non-partisan and while it's impossible for people not to be emotional, a justice should not act emotional in these settings.

If he wanted to maintain his innocence, he should have stuck to simply saying he did not do it, that the laws says innocent until proven guilty, and the like.

Instead he took the 'poor me' approach. Every politician in that room has probably had extreme claims made about him/her. That's the political environment he stepped into when nominated.

shiftless2 wrote:

His behavior goes far beyond being "pissed off". Besides, this is a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. If he's going to act like this when he's being questioned about his past he's definitely not what I'd call "judgeship worthy".

I don't disagree with you about Kavanaugh's worthiness for the bench - any bench. I'm just quarrelling with this so-called social worker's list of what makes somebody guilty. She's obviously decided anybody she interviews is guilty because there's no way to escape her criteria. I've got a feeling there's a lot of innocent men in prison because of what she claims are "problematic" responses.

jim, you're conflating a couple of different issues ~ what the social worker said was: "I cannot say this is a fact, but whenever clients deny behavior they have been accused of, I consider it problematic if they display any of the following: ..." ~ she's not declaring anyone guilty of anything, but she finds it "problematic" if she sees the markers/symptoms ~ that's exactly how virtually all medical diagnoses are made ~

Do you really think any ethical employer would hire any job candidate who yells and cries and lies during the interview, let alone one who is accused of sexual assault?

Sooz

she's not declaring anyone guilty of anything, but she finds it "problematic" if she sees the markers/symptoms ~ that's exactly how virtually all medical diagnoses are made ~

And I would find that kind of interrogator "problematic" and would dispense with her as quickly as possible. I've been dealing with those kind of situations pretty much my whole work life and, frankly given the atmosphere that's existed for the past 20-30 years, would find it more problematic if a person accused of sex harassment didn't become angry and defensive. True or not the complaint has put the guy's livelihood, and possibly even his personal and marriage relationships on the line. To expect they aren't going to fight back is unrealistic. The guys I don't trust are the ones who stay calm, cool, collected. They're the ones who are likely guilty simply because they don't understand what the fuss is all about. The ones that come out with "what, can't they take a joke?"

Frankly, I suspect whoever this woman is, she's goes into every investigation with her mind made up before she's asked the first question and hears only that which bolsters her prejudice.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, jim ... and so am I ~ we disagree ~ so be it ~

Sooz

From my Facebook feed ~ and it went dramatically downhill from this ~ ~ Sooz

On "60 Minutes" last night, Sens Jeff Flake [R] and Chris Coons [D] agreed that if the FBI investigation offers any evidence that Kavanaugh lied in his testimony, it would automatically DISqualify his nomination ~ ~ "live links" in original ~ Sooz

In Supreme Court fight, time is not Brett Kavanaugh’s friend
10/01/18 09:20 AM
By Steve Benen

A week is a long time in politics. In Brett Kavanaugh’s case, a final vote on his Supreme Court nomination was delayed for an FBI investigation – the scope of which has apparently been limited by the White House – which could, in theory, be “a blessing in disguise,” as Donald Trump put it over the weekend.

That isn’t necessarily an outrageous assumption. The Republican jurist’s allies could use the extra time to persuade senators like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, at which point his confirmation will be secured. The FBI background check may even provide on-the-fence senators some cover: if the examination doesn’t turn up definitive evidence, it’s easy to imagine them saying, “Well, the FBI checked, and it looks like we’ll probably never know exactly what happened in this incident, so there’s no need to delay confirmation any longer.”

But there’s another way to look at this.

The delay in the process could, for example, give more people – on Capitol Hill and off – time to digest the fact that much of what Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee late last week wasn’t quite true.


There were similar fact-check pieces published over the last few days from the Washington Post, the Associated Press, and Current Affairs. In each case, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee does not fare well: Kavanaugh’s strained relationship with the truth casts a menacing cloud over his nomination.

A Boston Globe editorial included a rather long list of false claims the judge made under oath and concluded, “Unfortunately, the only way for senators to convince themselves that Kavanaugh hasn’t already been shown to be a habitual liar is to lie to themselves.”

But that’s really just the start.

A delay also gives more witnesses time to speak up, as we saw yesterday with a new statement from Chad Ludington, a former classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, who said the judge’s characterization of his alcohol consumption was “a blatant mischaracterization.”

“[W]hen I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed,” Ludimgton’s statement read. “For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive.”

A delay in the confirmation process may give everyone time to note that Kavanaugh’s testimony pointed to “exonerations that weren’t exactly exonerating.” A delay also offers a chance to look anew at Kavauagh’s calendar from 1982 – specifically a July 1 entry that appears to describe a gathering like the one Christine Blasey Ford described in her version of events.

Meanwhile, a delay further allows observers of every stripe a reflect on that stunning opening statement from Thursday’s hearing, in which Kavanaugh was equal parts partisan, belligerent, and conspiratorial, doing lasting harm to his claims that he’d serve as a neutral arbiter on the nation’s highest court. (Even Republican Sen. Jeff Flake wasn’t altogether pleased with the tenor of the remarks.)

And finally, it’s likely we’ll see some fresh polling this week, before senators cast their final verdict. Kavanaugh was already an unusually unpopular Supreme Court nominee, and if recent developments have further eroded his public support – and there’s some preliminary evidence pointing in that direction – wavering senators will have another reason to hesitate.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/supreme-court-fight-time-not-brett-kavanaughs-friend#break

Well, HALLELUJAH! ~ the original restrictions were ridiculous ... the FBI had been instructed to ONLY interview a total of 4 [DiC/WH hand-picked people] ~ several classmates of Kavanaugh's, from both the prep school and Yale, are contradicting his stories/explanations ~ maybe now the truth will come out/be heard ~ fingers crossed ~ Sooz

Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination
WH Authorizes FBI To Expand Scope Of Probe, As Long As Finished By End Of Week
By Nicole Lafond / October 1, 2018 2:28 pm

The White House has given the FBI permission to expand the scope of its probe into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, as long as the investigation is finished by the end of the week, The New York Times reported Monday.

NBC News’ subsequently confirmed the White House’s authorization.

According to two people briefed on the matter who spoke to the Times, the directive gives the FBI the ability to interview “anyone it deems necessary,” in the Times’ words. The White House was reportedly attempting to stifle the investigation by, among other things, limiting which accusers the FBI interviewed and prohibiting the bureau from talking to former classmates who might dispute Kavanaugh’s claims that he wasn’t a heavy drinker.

Trump indicated during a press conference on Monday that he wanted to probe to be “comprehensive,” but “guided by what the senators are looking for.”

This post has been updated.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-house-authorizes-fbi-scope-expand

agree with the "time is not his friend" statement. the longer he waits, the lower his chances go.

I was reading an article about exactly what the FBI will be doing. As the person being interviewed pointed out, they are not conducting an investigation. They are expanding their background investigation meaning they simply interview people and submit the raw reports to the White House for evaluation. They do not draw conclusions or make recommendations. That is up to the White House and Senate.

The place leaks like a sieve. It could prove to be even more damaging to the WH if they try to stifle anything.

This is exactly what I have been saying.

The accusations against Kavanaugh were never going to be substantial enough to change opinions. FBI findings that will come soon are not likely to change this.

What is more telling is Kavanaugh's response to the accusations. In the past, we probably would have seen his nomination withdrawn. Not today. Today the Republicans will keep pushing forward because they want this guy on the court.


500+ Law Professors Agree: Kavanaugh's Testimony Was 'Disqualifying For Any Court,' Let Alone Supreme Court

The nominee, a joint letter states, "displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/03/500-law-professors-agree-kavanaughs-testimony-was-disqualifying-any-court-let-alone

It doesn't matter what comes out of the expanded investigation. He's in like Flynn.

So it'll be impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice?