Republicans want a Potemkin hearing for Christine Blasey Ford

[jsteele]

I know there are other threads on this topic but please indulge me as I exert my privilege as a co-owner of this website to post my own views.

At a time when Russian influence in US politics is a matter of great controversy, it is perhaps fitting that one construction of Russia is about to be displayed on Capitol Hill. The Republican refusal to allow an independent investigation into Christine Blasey Ford's allegations of sexual assault by Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh and their "take it or leave it" offer to appear at a Monday hearing with no other witnesses beyond herself and Judge Kavanaugh are an attempt to stage a Potemkin hearing. The Republicans would be thrilled to have Ford refuse their offer and simply have the whole issue go away. But, in lieu of that, their goal is a hearing in which Republican committee members listen respectfully to Ford's tale, utter some sympathetic sounds, and then lament that no evidence exists to support her version of events. But, of course, the Republicans are doing all in their power to ensure that no evidence exists.

If the goal of Monday's hearing were to establish facts, an investigation to collect facts would be necessary. Just as the FBI investigated charges made by Anita Hill against then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas -- an investigation that lasted only a matter of days -- the FBI could be asked to look into to Ford's claims. There is at least one identified alleged witness, Mark Judge, who could easily be called as a witness or, at a minimum, questioned under oath. Former classmates of Ford's have described rumors of the attack. These individuals should be questioned as well. But, the Republican goal is not to establish facts. Rather, it is to simply check a box marked "she has been heard".

Republicans claim that Ford is either part of or being exploited for a Democratic effort to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation. Their position seems to be that establishing fact is less important than avoiding a delay. Yet, the same Republicans had no problem delaying the confirmation process of Merrick Garland. Potentially a delay could push confirmation past the November elections and a possible, if unlikely, Democratic takeover of the Senate could make confirmation impossible (though it could still happen in a lame duck session). Essentially, having stolen Garland's seat through delay, the Republicans are now scared of being hoisted by their own petard. To avoid such delay -- or even worse for them, the undercovering of evidence supporting Ford's allegations -- nothing more than a Potemkin hearing will be allowed.

Ford should attend Monday's hearing and tell her story. But, she shouldn't stop there. She should seize the national spotlight that will be at her disposal to make clear that she is reluctantly participating in a Potemkin hearing and that any interest in establishing facts requires a serious investigation. She will be able to highlight the Republicans' placing politics before justice and their willingness to put a flawed candidate on the court rather than take even a longshot risk of losing the seat. The Republican refusal to allow an authentic investigation of her claims will likely be a rallying cry in the midterms in which the Republicans already suffer from a significant gender gap. The Republicans may get away with their Potemkin hearing, but they may find that they will be made to pay for it in November. If Ford is able to drive this political calculus home to the Republicans, they may decide that the risks of a real investigation and a serious hearing are worth taking.

[Anonymous]

You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

because they were drunk minors, it's OK to assault someone?

No, just no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

because they were drunk minors, it's OK to assault someone?

No, just no.

Lots of shit is not “OK” and yet not worth marshaling the resources of federal law enforcement authorities, esp. when we all know it’s impossible to figure out the truth. Congress can listen to his darn character witnesses testify under oath and that’s that.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you Jeff. It seems like GOP wants a Potemkin testimony. At the same time I read this Opinion piece from Jennifer Rubi today

Republicans, be forewarned: Kavanaugh’s accuser has options

She lists several points on how Dr. Ford can testify and turn this hearing to GOP nightmare. Then she states...

In short, Ford can use the hearing to put the senators, who have behaved shabbily, on defense.

Ford has another option: Hold a news conference with her own experts and make the case directly to the American people. She can sit down for an interview with a respected TV journalist. She can say whatever she wants, make certain that experts are heard and even recount the much more extensive investigative efforts undertaken when Hill stepped forward. To make her case to the American people and convince them that she is sincere, honest and credible, Ford doesn’t need the Senate.

I actually like her to do that today or tomorrow and then go for the hearing on Monday.

There is another aspect which is bothering me. Why would GOP not want a full fledged investigation? This charge is fairly serious. If it were true, someone who might have evidence can blackmail Kavanaugh once he is confirmed. Why would GOP want to have a blackmailable SCJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

because they were drunk minors, it's OK to assault someone?

No, just no.

Lots of shit is not “OK” and yet not worth marshaling the resources of federal law enforcement authorities, esp. when we all know it’s impossible to figure out the truth. Congress can listen to his darn character witnesses testify under oath and that’s that.

Then why is important to handover a SJC post to someone with that cloud o his head?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

because they were drunk minors, it's OK to assault someone?

No, just no.

Lots of shit is not “OK” and yet not worth marshaling the resources of federal law enforcement authorities, esp. when we all know it’s impossible to figure out the truth. Congress can listen to his darn character witnesses testify under oath and that’s that.

Then why is important to handover a SJC post to someone with that cloud o his head?

What “cloud”? I can’t explain to you how much I don’t care about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

because they were drunk minors, it's OK to assault someone?

No, just no.

Lots of shit is not “OK” and yet not worth marshaling the resources of federal law enforcement authorities, esp. when we all know it’s impossible to figure out the truth. Congress can listen to his darn character witnesses testify under oath and that’s that.

Then why is important to handover a SJC post to someone with that cloud o his head?

What “cloud”? I can’t explain to you how much I don’t care about this.

You do not care that he attempted to rape a woman and got away with it. But there are tons on people care. You do not care that he lied during his testimony, but there are others who care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

The FBI should investigate or Kavanaugh could just withdraw his nomination so the Republicans can put forth someone who doesn't have this controversy. Easy peasy.

[Anonymous]

Hey everyone, I yelled at a kid in middle school and pushed him into a wall. This was like a 2 minute incident. If I’m up for Senate confirmation in the future, let’s get the FBI to look into that because maybe it’s assault and battery!!!!

[Anonymous]

I hope she comes on Monday and recalls as much as she can:

-whose party was it, whose house? Who invited her?

I am guessing she remembers more than was disclosed in the letter, but why put it in the letter when it would come out in an investigation?

She should repeatedly cite Mr. Judge and question why he wasn't there to testify under oath.
She should introduce the polygraph in addition to her sworn testimony. It provides a shade more than he said/she said.

And, as others have noted, she should show how this was a sham, that this is banana republic territory and the American People need to stand up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

The FBI should investigate or Kavanaugh could just withdraw his nomination so the Republicans can put forth someone who doesn't have this controversy. Easy peasy.

The idiot left will try to character assassinate anyone to protect this dumb swing seat. Frankly that this is the worst they could dig up says great things about his character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

The FBI should investigate or Kavanaugh could just withdraw his nomination so the Republicans can put forth someone who doesn't have this controversy. Easy peasy.

The idiot left will try to character assassinate anyone to protect this dumb swing seat. Frankly that this is the worst they could dig up says great things about his character.

It seems that you missed the confirmation hearings.

[Anonymous]

She doesn’t remember the YEAR in which this alleged attempted rape occurred.

Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey everyone, I yelled at a kid in middle school and pushed him into a wall. This was like a 2 minute incident. If I’m up for Senate confirmation in the future, let’s get the FBI to look into that because maybe it’s assault and battery!!!!

If you tried to sexually assault that kid, then yes, an investigation may be needed.

A 17 year old can be charged as an adult btw. And in many cases, they have, though they are usually young black men.