Republicans want a Potemkin hearing for Christine Blasey Ford

[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.

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

Well then TOUGH LUCK, COOKIE!

Let me guess, you're what, 12?

[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.

Partisan hack is not a qualification for a Supreme Court judge, sorry.

[Anonymous]

I think she should go on TV and tell her story directly to the public. She should explain what's going on, why she wants an FBI investigation. She should talk about why she came forward about this alleged incident now. She should explain why this alleged incident ought to disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.

If the GOP will not investigate and insists on this fake "fact-finding" hearing, Ms. Ford should take the case to the American people. She should not take this extreme bullying on the part of old GOP men lying down, pardon the expression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!!

Go ahead, keep dismissing men assaults of women. You will lose women’s votes forever.

Good thing I still have own vote then because I’m a woman.

Still losing the votes of women when you dismiss them like that, so great ahead. Your vote won’t make up for all the others you’ll lose.

Too many of us who were assaulted or have loved ones who were assaulted and we believe Dr Ford because we’ve been there and know women rarely make up something like this. Who wants to offer themselves up to extra harassment and death threats?

[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.

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

Well then TOUGH LUCK, COOKIE!

Let me guess, you're what, 12?

Also wrong. There's no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think she should go on TV and tell her story directly to the public. She should explain what's going on, why she wants an FBI investigation. She should talk about why she came forward about this alleged incident now. She should explain why this alleged incident ought to disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.

If the GOP will not investigate and insists on this fake "fact-finding" hearing, Ms. Ford should take the case to the American people. She should not take this extreme bullying on the part of old GOP men lying down, pardon the expression.

Yes, and she should take questions from the same public. Like: how do you not recall the year of this incident? Why don’t you know whose home you were in? Or how you got to the party? Or got home? Let the public, court of public opinion, know these answers.

[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.

Partisan hack is not a qualification for a Supreme Court judge, sorry.

No, really — it’s a ridiculous and exceptional qualification!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!!

Go ahead, keep dismissing men assaults of women. You will lose women’s votes forever.

Good thing I still have own vote then because I’m a woman.

Still losing the votes of women when you dismiss them like that, so great ahead. Your vote won’t make up for all the others you’ll lose.

Too many of us who were assaulted or have loved ones who were assaulted and we believe Dr Ford because we’ve been there and know women rarely make up something like this. Who wants to offer themselves up to extra harassment and death threats?

Who wants to do it? I’ll tell you who. People who are very invested in liberal political causes and have been assured by the Democratic Party that they’ll have whatever security they need. Anonymous death threats in the age of the internet are pretty de rigeur. Anita Hill’s life went back to normal so I doubt this (tenured?) professor is really risking much but temporary hysteria.

[Anonymous]

I hope she uses the hearing to say what she needs/wants to say and to simultaneously point out what’s problematic about the process. Media before and after the event could help her make her case. It’ll take a lot of strength and self-control, but I suspect she has plenty of both. She’s already experienced the abuse that comes with speaking out and no doubt realizes it’s not going to stop if she no-shows.

[Anonymous]

^^^ rigueur

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!!

Go ahead, keep dismissing men assaults of women. You will lose women’s votes forever.

Good thing I still have own vote then because I’m a woman.

Still losing the votes of women when you dismiss them like that, so great ahead. Your vote won’t make up for all the others you’ll lose.

Too many of us who were assaulted or have loved ones who were assaulted and we believe Dr Ford because we’ve been there and know women rarely make up something like this. Who wants to offer themselves up to extra harassment and death threats?

Who wants to do it? I’ll tell you who. People who are very invested in liberal political causes and have been assured by the Democratic Party that they’ll have whatever security they need. Anonymous death threats in the age of the internet are pretty de rigeur. Anita Hill’s life went back to normal so I doubt this (tenured?) professor is really risking much but temporary hysteria.

And there you have it, folks. This is what Republicans really think of women. That they're conniving, scheming untrustworthy things.

I'm very invested in liberal causes and have never been assured by the Democratic Party that I'd have "whatever security I need" if I lied on such a public and grand scale. You are delusional.

Women especially are attuned to the dangers of harassment that come when you stick your neck out in a public way. This woman sent her letter initially asking for it not to be made public because she was all too aware of how her life would be thrown into upheaval. She's had to go into hiding. Women don't do such things willy-nilly. And this is exactly why so many assaults go unreported because of fear of this sort of reaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she should go on TV and tell her story directly to the public. She should explain what's going on, why she wants an FBI investigation. She should talk about why she came forward about this alleged incident now. She should explain why this alleged incident ought to disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.

If the GOP will not investigate and insists on this fake "fact-finding" hearing, Ms. Ford should take the case to the American people. She should not take this extreme bullying on the part of old GOP men lying down, pardon the expression.

Yes, and she should take questions from the same public. Like: how do you not recall the year of this incident? Why don’t you know whose home you were in? Or how you got to the party? Or got home? Let the public, court of public opinion, know these answers.

I went to a number of parties in high school and college and even after college where I couldn't tell you who owned the house / the exact location, the year, how I actually got there (who drove) etc.. And such memories for specific details get worse the older you get, sorry to report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Alleged sexual assault is now "identity politics"? Who is on the other side of that one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!!!!

Go ahead, keep dismissing men assaults of women. You will lose women’s votes forever.

Good thing I still have own vote then because I’m a woman.

Still losing the votes of women when you dismiss them like that, so great ahead. Your vote won’t make up for all the others you’ll lose.

Too many of us who were assaulted or have loved ones who were assaulted and we believe Dr Ford because we’ve been there and know women rarely make up something like this. Who wants to offer themselves up to extra harassment and death threats?

Who wants to do it? I’ll tell you who. People who are very invested in liberal political causes and have been assured by the Democratic Party that they’ll have whatever security they need. Anonymous death threats in the age of the internet are pretty de rigeur. Anita Hill’s life went back to normal so I doubt this (tenured?) professor is really risking much but temporary hysteria.

And there you have it, folks. This is what Republicans really think of women. That they're conniving, scheming untrustworthy things.

I'm very invested in liberal causes and have never been assured by the Democratic Party that I'd have "whatever security I need" if I lied on such a public and grand scale. You are delusional.

Women especially are attuned to the dangers of harassment that come when you stick your neck out in a public way. This woman sent her letter initially asking for it not to be made public because she was all too aware of how her life would be thrown into upheaval. She's had to go into hiding. Women don't do such things willy-nilly. And this is exactly why so many assaults go unreported because of fear of this sort of reaction.

You don’t think that in discussions with Democratic senators, they haven’t discussed the death threats and security. I’m not saying that she’s been on the payroll for security long term. And I’m not a Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she should go on TV and tell her story directly to the public. She should explain what's going on, why she wants an FBI investigation. She should talk about why she came forward about this alleged incident now. She should explain why this alleged incident ought to disqualify Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.

If the GOP will not investigate and insists on this fake "fact-finding" hearing, Ms. Ford should take the case to the American people. She should not take this extreme bullying on the part of old GOP men lying down, pardon the expression.

Yes, and she should take questions from the same public. Like: how do you not recall the year of this incident? Why don’t you know whose home you were in? Or how you got to the party? Or got home? Let the public, court of public opinion, know these answers.

I went to a number of parties in high school and college and even after college where I couldn't tell you who owned the house / the exact location, the year, how I actually got there (who drove) etc.. And such memories for specific details get worse the older you get, sorry to report.

Drunk people do not have great memories.