Republicans want a Potemkin hearing for Christine Blasey Ford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ford said what happened. No one cares about you, and of course you don't know what happened, but you erroneously think you're cute with your sad little hashtags. #getalife

“Ford said what happened.” To you, I guess that sounds like, “God said, let there be light!” It’s pathetic. It’s a mockery of feminism. I’m not obligated to believe accusations. As an adult human being with the ability to reason, I’m in fact obligated to be skeptical.

Your skepticism only turns on her, not on him. How intellectually dishonest. And the only person potentially deifying anyone here is you.

Judges are not my gods, neither are politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what relevance her yearbook page has to her having a sexual assault against her.

agreed - I just checked out the link and talk about a nothingburger -- it's a bunch of commentary on the photos and captions. Someone went to a lot of trouble redacting (some) names and blocking (some) photos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what relevance her yearbook page has to her having a sexual assault against her.

I guess the same relevance his yearbook has, people have been referencing his, why not hers?

the only relevant thing that both yearbooks indicate is that there was a party culture between Holton Arms and G-Town Prep -- which we already knew - from Prof Ford herself.

[jsteele]

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.

Ford has identified others that were at the party. Why don't you want to hear from them under oath? Some classmates have said that rumors of the attack circulated at the time. Why wouldn't you want to hear from those folks?

Of course there will never be evidence if you make no effort to find it and ignore what has already been found. That is exactly the Republican playbook.

[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.

He was 17 and in some states he can be charged as an adult.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Of course we can. We can find a judge who's not currently accused of attempted rape. I know that cuts the field down quite a bit for you.

[Anonymous]

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.

If they make her cry, he's toast.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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!!!!

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

[Anonymous]

It's pretty simple, if she wants an investigation, she needs to tell someone other than the media a crime was committed.

They will ask where and when, and I don't know will not work as an answer.

[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!!!!

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.

[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.

Mark Judge needs to be heard from, and any names that might come up in the course of the investigation, like the classmate who posted from Mexico about having heard rumors about it at the time. She might recall who she discussed it with and that may cascade into other interviews. That is why the FBI should take a look. It isn't just his word against hers anymore.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty simple, if she wants an investigation, she needs to tell someone other than the media a crime was committed.

They will ask where and when, and I don't know will not work as an answer.

Doesn't sound like you know anything about law enforcement.