Republicans want a Potemkin hearing for Christine Blasey Ford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ridiculous.

Then she can't do math because she does remember she was 15....

Unless your birthday is Jan 1, everyone is 15 across two different years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is nonsense if they don't separate the witnesses, allow the testimony of Ford's therapist and husband, allow introduction of supporting documents they may have, allow Judge to be subpoenaed, and permit the cross-examination of Kavanaugh under oath. That much process, at least, is due.

Yeah, it’s almost like there should be some system set up to... OH WAIT! She can PRESS CHARGES in Maryland if she cares to. A judicial confirmation is not a forum for reinventing criminal process.

Different processes for different functions. A criminal proceeding is the process for wrongdoing that the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt which justifies the State depriving an individual of his or her liberty. A civil proceeding is the process for wrongdoing that a civilian can prove by a preponderance of evidence to obtain money from the wrongdoer. Nobody is proposing having the State deprive him of his liberty. Ford doesn't want money out of him.

This process is to determine whether Kavanaugh meets the high qualifications we should expect when elevating a person to a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in the world. In the criminal proceeding, the thumb is on the scale in favor of the accused. In the civil proceeding, the scales are balanced. In this proceeding, given what's at stake, the scales should be stacked against the nominee so that only those of the highest caliber qualify.

I don’t agree with your suggestion of what “highest caliber candidate” means. Kavanaugh is ridiculously, exceptionally qualified. This distant vague allegation, brought at the last minute in a ridiculously high-stakes environment that’s turning into a referendum on Roe v. Wade, does not mean he’s not of the highest caliber as far as judges go. Jesus, the man already has a lifetime appointment on a hugely important court. Why didn’t the accuser speak up then? Oh right, because this is just politics and it’s all about Roe v. Wade.

[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!!!!

Sigh. Go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!!

Sigh. Go away.

Never.

[Anonymous]

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

Ridiculous.

I was sexually assaulted as a child, and I don't remember the year either. The details of the assault are crystal clear, but many other less important details have faded from my memory.

[Anonymous]

Jeff,

The real hearing has been over for two weeks. If Democrats really want the process to be fair, Feinstein should have forwarded the letter to chairman Grassley, six weeks ago, when she first received. That would have been before the actual hearing. Senate staffers would then conduct an investigation and include the results in the hearing. The investigation would have been kept secret from the public to be fair to both the judge and the accuser.

They chose a delay tactic and laundered it to the public. This is extremely unethical and unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is nonsense if they don't separate the witnesses, allow the testimony of Ford's therapist and husband, allow introduction of supporting documents they may have, allow Judge to be subpoenaed, and permit the cross-examination of Kavanaugh under oath. That much process, at least, is due.

Yeah, it’s almost like there should be some system set up to... OH WAIT! She can PRESS CHARGES in Maryland if she cares to. A judicial confirmation is not a forum for reinventing criminal process.

Different processes for different functions. A criminal proceeding is the process for wrongdoing that the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt which justifies the State depriving an individual of his or her liberty. A civil proceeding is the process for wrongdoing that a civilian can prove by a preponderance of evidence to obtain money from the wrongdoer. Nobody is proposing having the State deprive him of his liberty. Ford doesn't want money out of him.

This process is to determine whether Kavanaugh meets the high qualifications we should expect when elevating a person to a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in the world. In the criminal proceeding, the thumb is on the scale in favor of the accused. In the civil proceeding, the scales are balanced. In this proceeding, given what's at stake, the scales should be stacked against the nominee so that only those of the highest caliber qualify.

I don’t agree with your suggestion of what “highest caliber candidate” means. Kavanaugh is ridiculously, exceptionally qualified. This distant vague allegation, brought at the last minute in a ridiculously high-stakes environment that’s turning into a referendum on Roe v. Wade, does not mean he’s not of the highest caliber as far as judges go. Jesus, the man already has a lifetime appointment on a hugely important court. Why didn’t the accuser speak up then? Oh right, because this is just politics and it’s all about Roe v. Wade.

He's not ridiculously qualified. Look at his febrile attachment to the Clinton/Vince Foster murder conspiracy theory and his creepy need to know about Monica Lewinski's orgasms, her vagina, and Bill Clinton's ejaculate.

Merrick Garland was ridiculously qualified and didn't get the seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,

The real hearing has been over for two weeks. If Democrats really want the process to be fair, Feinstein should have forwarded the letter to chairman Grassley, six weeks ago, when she first received. That would have been before the actual hearing. Senate staffers would then conduct an investigation and include the results in the hearing. The investigation would have been kept secret from the public to be fair to both the judge and the accuser.

They chose a delay tactic and laundered it to the public. This is extremely unethical and unfair.

Release the remaining documents, investigate this claim, have another hearing. It's a lifetime job and Scalia's seat was left open for 400 days. There's time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is nonsense if they don't separate the witnesses, allow the testimony of Ford's therapist and husband, allow introduction of supporting documents they may have, allow Judge to be subpoenaed, and permit the cross-examination of Kavanaugh under oath. That much process, at least, is due.

Yeah, it’s almost like there should be some system set up to... OH WAIT! She can PRESS CHARGES in Maryland if she cares to. A judicial confirmation is not a forum for reinventing criminal process.

Different processes for different functions. A criminal proceeding is the process for wrongdoing that the State can prove beyond a reasonable doubt which justifies the State depriving an individual of his or her liberty. A civil proceeding is the process for wrongdoing that a civilian can prove by a preponderance of evidence to obtain money from the wrongdoer. Nobody is proposing having the State deprive him of his liberty. Ford doesn't want money out of him.

This process is to determine whether Kavanaugh meets the high qualifications we should expect when elevating a person to a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in the world. In the criminal proceeding, the thumb is on the scale in favor of the accused. In the civil proceeding, the scales are balanced. In this proceeding, given what's at stake, the scales should be stacked against the nominee so that only those of the highest caliber qualify.

I don’t agree with your suggestion of what “highest caliber candidate” means. Kavanaugh is ridiculously, exceptionally qualified. This distant vague allegation, brought at the last minute in a ridiculously high-stakes environment that’s turning into a referendum on Roe v. Wade, does not mean he’s not of the highest caliber as far as judges go. Jesus, the man already has a lifetime appointment on a hugely important court. Why didn’t the accuser speak up then? Oh right, because this is just politics and it’s all about Roe v. Wade.

He's not ridiculously qualified. Look at his febrile attachment to the Clinton/Vince Foster murder conspiracy theory and his creepy need to know about Monica Lewinski's orgasms, her vagina, and Bill Clinton's ejaculate.

Merrick Garland was ridiculously qualified and didn't get the seat.

Garland was qualified, too. They’re both fine. The GOP block at least was rules-based. This Dem assault is embarrassing identity politics and they will pay in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Anita Hill allegation was way less distant in time and more detailed than this one. The fact that this involved a bunch of rich high schoolers partying makes me care even less. A federal workplace has much clearer rules of interpersonal conduct.

You need a code of conduct not to pull someone into a bedroom, climb on top, grind against her, fondle her, and cover her mouth? Holy crap dude. You need help.

I’m actually a woman. Have you been to parties with drunk teenagers? It’s not a genteel gathering. People act ridiculous, both women and men. They flirt, they grind, whatever. I have no idea what happened and, based on what’s been said so far, I don’t care. #enoughalready

DP, you seem to still be suggesting that the presence of any of what you listed justifies taking it several steps further.

I’m not suggesting that. I can’t know what happened. It was a ridiculous amount of time ago. Let the lady testify and say whatever she wants and let’s move on. This thread is about whether the goddamn FBI should investige! No, they should not.

Senator Grassley? Are you posting on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is no real “evidence” that exists. Republicans don’t need to “ensure” that. It is her account vs. his account.
She claims to have said something about this in a couples therapy sessions. Fine. Present the therapist’s notes. Have her tell what she discussed. Have her relate what her claims are.
You don’t need a slew of people to vouch for her. She tells her side, he tells his.

And, it’s disturbing to read about someone who is a “victim” and someone who is a “perpetrator” or “assaulter.” None of this has been proven. And, it probably never will be.
These two people have names. Use them.

Really, PP? Are you an investigator? Have you interviewed all the witnesses and examined all the written evidence? How do you come by this knowledge? The rest of us are waiting. Please tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Garland was qualified, too. They’re both fine. The GOP block at least was rules-based. This Dem assault is embarrassing identity politics and they will pay in November.

If the Republicans gain seats in November, I will concede your wisdom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is nonsense if they don't separate the witnesses, allow the testimony of Ford's therapist and husband, allow introduction of supporting documents they may have, allow Judge to be subpoenaed, and permit the cross-examination of Kavanaugh under oath. That much process, at least, is due.

Yeah, it’s almost like there should be some system set up to... OH WAIT! She can PRESS CHARGES in Maryland if she cares to. A judicial confirmation is not a forum for reinventing criminal process.

No, she cannot press charges in Maryland. The statue of limitations has run out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process is nonsense if they don't separate the witnesses, allow the testimony of Ford's therapist and husband, allow introduction of supporting documents they may have, allow Judge to be subpoenaed, and permit the cross-examination of Kavanaugh under oath. That much process, at least, is due.

Yeah, it’s almost like there should be some system set up to... OH WAIT! She can PRESS CHARGES in Maryland if she cares to. A judicial confirmation is not a forum for reinventing criminal process.

No, she cannot press charges in Maryland. The statue of limitations has run out.

Well then TOUGH LUCK, COOKIE!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff,

The real hearing has been over for two weeks. If Democrats really want the process to be fair, Feinstein should have forwarded the letter to chairman Grassley, six weeks ago, when she first received. That would have been before the actual hearing. Senate staffers would then conduct an investigation and include the results in the hearing. The investigation would have been kept secret from the public to be fair to both the judge and the accuser.

They chose a delay tactic and laundered it to the public. This is extremely unethical and unfair.

Let's concede for the sake of argument that you are entirely correct and the Democrats, led by Feinstein, are simply engaged in a delaying tactic. The Republicans are therefore caught between the rock of a delay and the hard place of potentially further alienating women. Grassley is trying to resolve this with a Potemkin hearing. You are trying to resolve it via a technicality. In my opinion, your resolution does nothing to resolve the Republicans' conundrum as it sends the message that sexual assault is so unimportant as to not deserve attention. Grassley's is only marginally better. The Republicans, and you as well, are making much of "delay" as if it is a horrible thing. But, the precedence of Garland shows that Republicans don't really care about delays. As a result, we are left with a possible sexual assault on the one hand -- something that both women and men have shown concerns them very much -- and a delay, which Republicans have shown they don't really care about, on the other.

Democrats may well lose the fight for the court seat. But the Republican tactics may well strengthen the Democrats for the midterms.