Republicans want a Potemkin hearing for Christine Blasey Ford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Feinstein refusing to give Grassley the unredacted letter Ford sent to Senate Democrats back in July?

Also wondering. Haven't heard an explanation for this.

Maybe because Grassley refused to give Feinstein the thousands of papers she (and other members of the SJC) asked for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Feinstein refusing to give Grassley the unredacted letter Ford sent to Senate Democrats back in July?

Also wondering. Haven't heard an explanation for this.

Agree. Curious, for sure.

[Anonymous]

And who leaked the letter anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Things are getting out of control with this cry for an FBI investigation. Y’all have images of Sherlock Holmes in your heads or something. I think there should be one, don’t get me wrong. Agentts talk to the Judge. Agents talk to the Professor. Details? Who, what, where, when, etc. Other agents track down potential witnesses. Whether there is much more to look into depends on the answers. I’m assuming his file, developed over six, court ‘em, six prior FBI background checks, contains character testimonials. It would take five days, tops, assuming witnesses are unearthed and other derivative leads need to be tracked down. If not, it’s fone in two days.

To be clear, hypocrisy is all over the place. If the shoe was in the other foot, the GOP would be demanding a pause for an investigation, no stone left unturned, up by your bootstraps, or whatever. And Democrats would be accusing them of dirty tricks, character attacks, and refusing to focus on the issues.

The precedent was already set with the Anita Hill case. Can we all agree - regardless of party - that Senators can't be neutral arbitrators in these matters, right? They all have an agenda, so let's hand this over to the professionals. There's zero need for anyone to testify on Monday since its not being conducted in a professional manner. The FBI will talk to all parties, get sworn statements, and hand over their findings to the Senators. Just get everyone on the record.

At the end of the day, this is a political decision. The burden of proof is much lower than a criminal or civil proceeding. I'd prefer to have disinterested parties (FBI agents) handling the collection of evidence.

However, my assumption is that anyone opposed to the FBI collecting evidence/testimony is probably scared of what the FBI might find. This is exactly why we have an independent law enforcement agency.

[Anonymous]

Another thing to add to the investigation: whether Kavanaugh was involved with Ed Whelan's efforts to pin the rape attempt on another man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Feinstein refusing to give Grassley the unredacted letter Ford sent to Senate Democrats back in July?

Also wondering. Haven't heard an explanation for this.

Maybe because Grassley refused to give Feinstein the thousands of papers she (and other members of the SJC) asked for?

Or because the SJC GOP staffers keep getting caught tweeting their partiality. Two just yesterday. Not the brightest bulbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another thing to add to the investigation: whether Kavanaugh was involved with Ed Whelan's efforts to pin the rape attempt on another man.

Absolutely, sure lookks like he did. Independently disqualifying.

[Anonymous]

Ah, the Shaggy defense. Well played. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but not 2 different summers.

It happened in the summer. Anyone not born in the summer only has one summer they are 15. It’s not that hard.
If I’m born Jan through May, it’s the summer right after I turned 15, if I’m born Sept. through December, it’s the summer right before I turned 16.
Even if you’re born in the summer, it’s either the summer you turned 15 or the summer you turned 16.

DOB BK=2/12/65

DOB CBF=11/28/66

Summer 1982: BK=17, CBF=15 and 1/2

See? It was not that hard. Why can't she say when it was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I love the idea of her doing an interview. Even if she does it quickly after the hearing. The Republicans have made a major miscalculation with Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing to add to the investigation: whether Kavanaugh was involved with Ed Whelan's efforts to pin the rape attempt on another man.

Absolutely, sure lookks like he did. Independently disqualifying.

What rape?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I love the idea of her doing an interview. Even if she does it quickly after the hearing. The Republicans have made a major miscalculation with Kavanaugh.

Well, Schumer's old flunkie was just on Fox and said something to the effect that is what would happen--she'll be on 60Minutes soon, no doubt. Bet she never intended to show up for a hearing. This isn't about justice or law. It is all about smoke and mirrors.

She'll do an interview and it will be quite sympathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I love the idea of her doing an interview. Even if she does it quickly after the hearing. The Republicans have made a major miscalculation with Kavanaugh.

Well, Schumer's old flunkie was just on Fox and said something to the effect that is what would happen--she'll be on 60Minutes soon, no doubt. Bet she never intended to show up for a hearing. This isn't about justice or law. It is all about smoke and mirrors.

She'll do an interview and it will be quite sympathetic.

No, she's not seeking "justice or law". She didn't go to the police, although she could have. She chose not to. This is only about the integrity of the highest court of the land, about this nominee's fitness.

Do you think his response this week has demonstrated fitness, integrity?

[Anonymous]

Do you think his response this week has demonstrated fitness, integrity?

Yes. I think people are trying to blame him for things that some of his supporters have done.

It is not unrealistic to try to find holes and gaps in the accusation--especially, when it is just that: an accusation.

You have people like Gillibrand claiming "I believe her." when she has not even met her (or, maybe she has--and that would be a whole other story.)

Her lawyers are not just attorneys--they are professional Dem activists. "Resisters." Ford wrote WAPO in July and took the polygraph in August. And, yet she was not prepared to come testify. One of the women hired to prepare her, said in July that they have a strategy to stall the nomination.

From the morning of the first hearing, this has been choreographed and orchestrated. This is vicious.

What was in her letter to Feinstein?

[Anonymous]

Poor Dr. Ford. She tries to stop a guy who attacked her and the GOP is too scared of what lies in his closet to investigate. The GOP has actually gone backwards since the Anita hill data. At least Hill got a FBI investigation.