Republicans want a Potemkin hearing for Christine Blasey Ford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fully agree about the Potemkin point given that her team was demanding that he testify first. Maybe not a great idea to place conditions on his defense.

Agree. The fact that she wants to make her accusations last, giving Kavanaugh no chance to rebut, raises red flags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fully agree about the Potemkin point given that her team was demanding that he testify first. Maybe not a great idea to place conditions on his defense.

Agree. The fact that she wants to make her accusations last, giving Kavanaugh no chance to rebut, raises red flags.

Has she said he can’t have a rebuttal, or has she just said she’d like him to go first?

[Anonymous]

Forget for a second that Kavanaugh may have attempted to rape Ford when they were in high school - let's just put that aside.

This guy is a political hack, an entrenched operative of the GOP who just happens to be an attorney and now judge. He has a shady past of questionable debt that was, poof!, eliminated with a variety of strange explanations.

He has a history, even among those who know him and like him, as being a heavy drinker and for running with a privileged, white, and openly misogynist crowd.

Why the f*ck is any American content with this nominee?

I want my SCOTUS to include the very best judicial scholars in the country who, independent of their politics, are able to interpret and apply the constitution. Not some frat bro who did the bidding of Ken Starr and has shown, at the very least, a willingness to do whatever it takes to please his GOP masters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Forget for a second that Kavanaugh may have attempted to rape Ford when they were in high school - let's just put that aside.

This guy is a political hack, an entrenched operative of the GOP who just happens to be an attorney and now judge. He has a shady past of questionable debt that was, poof!, eliminated with a variety of strange explanations.

He has a history, even among those who know him and like him, as being a heavy drinker and for running with a privileged, white, and openly misogynist crowd.

Why the f*ck is any American content with this nominee?

I want my SCOTUS to include the very best judicial scholars in the country who, independent of their politics, are able to interpret and apply the constitution. Not some frat bro who did the bidding of Ken Starr and has shown, at the very least, a willingness to do whatever it takes to please his GOP masters.

He’s considered to be an extemely smart and capable judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fully agree about the Potemkin point given that her team was demanding that he testify first. Maybe not a great idea to place conditions on his defense.

Agree. The fact that she wants to make her accusations last, giving Kavanaugh no chance to rebut, raises red flags.

Has she said he can’t have a rebuttal, or has she just said she’d like him to go first?

I read one article that mentioned the rebuttal point. In any event, all that was correctly rejected by the GOP, though. It’s been pretty much established, post-Inquisition, that the accused testifies second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not sure what you mean. He categorically denied the allegation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forget for a second that Kavanaugh may have attempted to rape Ford when they were in high school - let's just put that aside.

This guy is a political hack, an entrenched operative of the GOP who just happens to be an attorney and now judge. He has a shady past of questionable debt that was, poof!, eliminated with a variety of strange explanations.

He has a history, even among those who know him and like him, as being a heavy drinker and for running with a privileged, white, and openly misogynist crowd.

Why the f*ck is any American content with this nominee?

I want my SCOTUS to include the very best judicial scholars in the country who, independent of their politics, are able to interpret and apply the constitution. Not some frat bro who did the bidding of Ken Starr and has shown, at the very least, a willingness to do whatever it takes to please his GOP masters.

He’s considered to be an extemely smart and capable judge.

That's his reputation. But is he wise? I'm willing to believe that his current behavior is an aberration. But he's not demonstrating wisdom right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fully agree about the Potemkin point given that her team was demanding that he testify first. Maybe not a great idea to place conditions on his defense.

Agree. The fact that she wants to make her accusations last, giving Kavanaugh no chance to rebut, raises red flags.

Has she said he can’t have a rebuttal, or has she just said she’d like him to go first?

I read one article that mentioned the rebuttal point. In any event, all that was correctly rejected by the GOP, though. It’s been pretty much established, post-Inquisition, that the accused testifies second.

In a court case, the state is the prosecutor and has the “burden of proof” to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In court, the accuser (i.e., the prosecutor goes first, the accused goes second and then the prosecutor has a right of rebuttal -i.e., to go again after the accused and rebut the accused’s defense.

Many have stated before that this situation is not a court case, but rather has a much lower burden of proof because Kavanaugh wants a privilege and is not being denied a right (life or liberty) as would typically be the consequence of a criminal conviction.

If Kavanaugh wants to speak after Ford, then she must have a right of rebuttal to speak again after him.

[Anonymous]

Graham: 'Not going to ruin' Kavanaugh over Ford's accusation

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/lindsey-graham-brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford/index.html?utm_term=image&utm_source=twCNNi&utm_content=2018-09-24T03%3A17%3A03&utm_medium=social

South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he does not expect to be swayed against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh even after he hears from Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused him of sexual assault.

"What am I supposed to do, go ahead and ruin this guy's life based on an accusation?" Graham said on "Fox News Sunday." He added, "I'm just being honest. Unless there's something more, no, I'm not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh's life over this. But she should come forward. She should have her say. She will be respectfully treated."

This is the GOP leader of today - they have made up their mind. They are doing this this forced show to assuage moderate women among their voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fully agree about the Potemkin point given that her team was demanding that he testify first. Maybe not a great idea to place conditions on his defense.

Agree. The fact that she wants to make her accusations last, giving Kavanaugh no chance to rebut, raises red flags.

Has she said he can’t have a rebuttal, or has she just said she’d like him to go first?

I read one article that mentioned the rebuttal point. In any event, all that was correctly rejected by the GOP, though. It’s been pretty much established, post-Inquisition, that the accused testifies second.

In a court case, the state is the prosecutor and has the “burden of proof” to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In court, the accuser (i.e., the prosecutor goes first, the accused goes second and then the prosecutor has a right of rebuttal -i.e., to go again after the accused and rebut the accused’s defense.

Many have stated before that this situation is not a court case, but rather has a much lower burden of proof because Kavanaugh wants a privilege and is not being denied a right (life or liberty) as would typically be the consequence of a criminal conviction.

If Kavanaugh wants to speak after Ford, then she must have a right of rebuttal to speak again after him.

Defense also has a right to surrebuttal sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Avenatti told POLITICO he represents a group of individuals who can corroborate allegations involving Kavanaugh and his longtime friend in the 1980s.

Avenatti said he’d describe just one of the individuals as a victim.

“She will testify,” he said. “But before she does, she will likely appear on camera for an interview.”

He said the others were witnesses to the allegations. Avenatti would not elaborate on the number of clients but said he represents them alone.

“I represent multiple clients, they are witnesses. I’m representing multiple individuals that have knowledge of this, there’s no other attorneys involved,” Avenatti told POLITICO. Asked if the witnesses attended Georgetown Prep’s sister school, he said they went beyond that. “They went to schools in the same general areas. These house parties were widely attended.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/second-woman-assault-kavanaugh-837678

[jsteele]

Please continue this discussion here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/754503.page