Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
Goat is so flippant and condescending telling you to try reading. You have to wonder if he ever looks in the mirror and assesses himself.
I think Sope makes some good points earlier in the thread about the idea of our past behaviors being judged by the standards of the future. I think we see some of this today, particularly with our use of language. And the idea is troublesome to me. In theory anyway. I'm afraid that no one cares enough to examine my past.
However, I don't see where sexual assault was ever deemed acceptable. Ignored? Yeah. But never acceptable. Should the event as described ruin a man's life? No. But there a wide gulf between a ruined life and one of the rarest and most prestigious positions in the country.
So while the denial would put a stamp on it, I think the incident itself should be enough to disqualify Mr. Kavanaugh.
Are you talking about this:
It is not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this. Before nominating an individual to a judicial or executive office, the White House directs the FBI to conduct a background investigation. The FBI compiles information about a prospective nominee and sends it to the White House. The White House then provides FBI background investigation files to the Senate as a courtesy to help us determine whether to confirm a nominee. The FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee. Nor is it tasked with investigating a matter simply because the Committee deems it important. The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominee and consenting to the nomination if the circumstances merit. We have no power to commandeer an Executive Branch agency into conducting our due diligence. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone.
I have reopened the hearing because I believe that anyone who comes forward with allegations of sexual assault has a right to be heard, and because it is the Committee’s responsibility to fully evaluate the fitness of a nominee to the Supreme Court. I therefore want to give Dr. Ford an opportunity to tell her story to the Senate and, if she chooses, to the American people. I also want to give Judge Kavanaugh an opportunity to respond to the allegations. By hearing out both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, the Committee will endeavor to discover the truth of the matter, and will be better able to make an informed judgment about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.
You have stated repeatedly that Dr. Ford wants to tell her story. I sincerely hope that Dr. Ford will accept my invitation to do so, either privately or publicly, on Monday. In the meantime, my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her. And I remind you that, consistent with Committee rules, Dr. Ford’s prepared testimony and biography are due to the Committee by 10:00 a.m. on Friday, September 21, if she intends to testify on Monday.
I have reopened the hearing because I believe that anyone who comes forward with allegations of sexual assault has a right to be heard, and because it is the Committee’s responsibility to fully evaluate the fitness of a nominee to the Supreme Court. I therefore want to give Dr. Ford an opportunity to tell her story to the Senate and, if she chooses, to the American people. I also want to give Judge Kavanaugh an opportunity to respond to the allegations. By hearing out both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, the Committee will endeavor to discover the truth of the matter, and will be better able to make an informed judgment about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.
You have stated repeatedly that Dr. Ford wants to tell her story. I sincerely hope that Dr. Ford will accept my invitation to do so, either privately or publicly, on Monday. In the meantime, my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her. And I remind you that, consistent with Committee rules, Dr. Ford’s prepared testimony and biography are due to the Committee by 10:00 a.m. on Friday, September 21, if she intends to testify on Monday.
I think we get caught up in words too. Sexual assault covers a lot of territory and maybe has lost clear application. If inappropriate and unwelcome groping and rape both constitute sexual assault, we should use more precise terms and recognize the appropriate consequences for each.
But we probably can't because folks will use those more precise terms to minimize and ignore all inappropriate and unwelcome conduct.
To that point, the Kavanaugh saga takes on disproportionate significance because too many apply their sensibility toward the tree of Kavanaugh to the forest of what seems to be endless ignoring and dismissing of sexual misconduct by men.
I thought for a second you were talking about me....but then I saw "otherwise intelligent people", and knew I was in the clear.
For the record....I have no issue with a further investigation....I think the nightmare scenario is he gets confirmed.....then further details of similar behavior trickle out over the next few months.
But a lack of a new investigation shouldn't preclude Ford from going and meeting with the committee....particularly behind closed doors.
Right now we have an article in the WaPo and the New Yorker......and not much else. Her testimony, under oath, would be a good sign of sincerity.
Seems as if people like Grassley and Hatch, who were both part of the JC dating back to Anita Hill, have had a sudden onset of early dementia. So Grassley wants to claim that it's not the FBI's role to investigate matters such as this? That would be a fascinating revelation to the Bush WH, and the other members of the JC that served with him... Does Senator Grassley understand that the "I" in FBI stands for INVESTIGATION (as a former FBI official pointed out on tv this week...
"As Christine Blasey Ford's lawyers insist the FBI investigate her claims of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh, here is a look back at how the FBI investigation into Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas came about.
- Clarence Thomas underwent his initial hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early September 1991.
- Anita Hill says she spoke with the Judiciary Committee in "early September," and that an FBI investigation was suggested to her on Sept. 20, 1991.
- On Sept. 23, 1991, allegations of harassment were brought to the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which immediately informed the White House, according to a statement from then-deputy press secretary Judy Smith.
- Upon learning of the allegations, the White House "promptly directed the FBI to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation," according to the statement.
- Three days later, on Sept. 26, 1991, the FBI completed its investigation, and a report was submitted to the White House and the Judiciary Committee. The White House deemed the allegations "unfounded."
- On Oct. 6, 1991, Nina Totenberg of NPR obtained a copy of the FBI report and reported on the allegations, the first time the public became aware of the story.
- On Oct. 11, 1991, Hill begins her testimony during Thomas' Senate confirmation hearing."
Now can any of you partisan hacks, who maintain you are not partisan hacks, explain why Mrs Ford is not at a minimum deserving of the same considerations as Anita Hill? Grassley is a ****ING LYING DOG with this BS...He has sold his soul to Trump...
The BLUE WAVE can simply not get here soon enough...It's beyond time this despot and his subservient minions in Congress were reigned in and forced to face the consequences of their abhorrent actions...
Did you just skip over this part:
- Anita Hill says she spoke with the Judiciary Committee in "early September," and that an FBI investigation was suggested to her on Sept. 20, 1991.
Your point would have some validity if there was to be an investigation after the testimony. But the current Republican position is that there will be no investigation, just testimony by Ford and Kavanaugh. Indeed, Republicans are persisting in the ludicrous claim that an investigation is unpossible. It is in light of this reality that Ford must make her determination.
You ask that Ford demonstrate her sincerity. Why shouldn't Senate Republicans demonstrate their sincerity? Because that isn't what they're demonstrating right now.
Just another example of the contagion of stupidity from Trump to Republicans. This is costing them more votes. That's good. Today's a sunny morning in Indiana. It's going to be a good Fall. Life is good for us white men and some of us will continue to endeavor to make it good for all.
I do wonder if this was an ordinary citizen and accuser, would the FBI actually get involved at any point? And if so, at what point?
Per the timeline @cosmickid just posted....Anita Hill met with Judiciary as step 1 of the process. If that's the precedent we are pointing to....than why shouldn't that be followed?
Probably feel the same way. This is the highest court in the land. I’m all for forgiveness and the such, but that’s a bad bad act if he did it.
if we can't ram through dictators for life who answer to no one, and who are anointed behind closed doors by a powerful few who are owned by the moneyed interests as opposed to being elected, then what is our so called democracy coming to.
Because Senate Republicans have already announced that there will be no investigation. As I keep pointing out, Senate Republicans persist in the ludicrous claim that an investigation is unpossible. It’s Senate Republicans who’ve ruled out the process you suggest.
Why must I keep repeating this point?
Politicians change their mind like they change their underwear on hot button issues like this.
By her just passing the invite, she's given them the easiest out imaginable.
"That it happened or not, I have no idea," Cristina King Miranda told NPR's Nina Totenberg. "I can't say that it did or didn't."
That's different from what Miranda wrote Wednesday in a now-deleted Facebook post that stated definitively, "The incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school."
"In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen]," Miranda told NPR. "I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter."
Miranda said staff from the Senate Judiciary Committee had reached out to her, something she was not expecting. She said she will not go through with a committee interview if asked.
Miranda says she played soccer with Ford — whom she refers to as Chrissy — in high school and that she continues to support her. Miranda added that despite not knowing specifics of what went on at the party three decades ago, she remembers that there was a "buzz" that went around the weekend of the party in question about an alleged incident involving students from her school and Kavanaugh's.
Maybe this lady who appears to be an attention seeking individual who got caught in a lie could be helpful in determining what particular weekend this occurred....
Frankly, I think this one is full of shit.
Because it's human nature to assume even bad people will change and do good. That's Mitch McConnell's main currency. He can connive until Judgment Day without repercussion.
So Grassley has offered Ford 4 different options....including flying Committee staff to California to meet with her.
Grassley separately told reporters on Wednesday that he is offering four potential venues to hear from Ford, including a public or private hearing before committee members, or public or private interviews with committee staff.
"We're going to continue to try to hear from Dr. Ford in any format she's comfortable [with] open session/closed session/private staff interviews/public staff interviews [because] her information is very important. We've provided an opportunity for her to put her story fwd on Monday,"
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...to-california-to-speak-with-kavanaugh-accuser"We're going to continue to try to hear from Dr. Ford in any format she's comfortable [with] open session/closed session/private staff interviews/public staff interviews [because] her information is very important. We've provided an opportunity for her to put her story fwd on Monday,"
And she might have good reasons for that. I'd need more information to think otherwise.
What's clear is that the Republicans in charge don't think this is really a big deal (i.e., it's not enough to waylay his rise to the bench) and they want to find the cleanest and quickest path forward.
Thanks for the link. It's objective and sensible. I've learned a few things. Thanks!
I wish she'd testify, but criticism is best focused on those who hold all the power. This could quickly be investigated but Senate Republicans insist there will be no investigation. Come hell or high water, say Senate Republicans, the subject of Ford's allegations will close on Monday. This is how people behave when they don't care what the facts are -- or affirmatively intend to act before any more facts could emerge.
It's not just how people behave, that's affirmatively what they've said, especially Hatch. To be clear, he didn't use the words "the facts don't matter", but he did say that even if true, that's not really who he is today.
This will be interesting. In the past when politicians have gone for short-term advantages, it bit the Senator or Congressperson involved in untoward behavior. This time it will be a sitting SC justice. With the number of journalists on the loose, it's only a matter of time before more people talk. Very interesting test of our democracy.
Of course you think she's full of shit. I, on the other hand, think she's obviously among the people that the FBI should interview. For example, she seems to be able to identify the weekend on which the party occurred because there was a buzz about it at school. Even though she didn't attend the party, she may know others who did. This is why you investigate.
All girls and women need to know this.
In the future, if this blog is true, the quality of our cadre of lawyers can be much higher if girls and women report immediately about such acts of sexual assault. That could well affect the quality of our politicians as well since so many lawyers become politicians.
Yes there are. Each of us probably has a different opinion of what that obvious reason would be.
You know, put up a Facebook post for your friends to see saying that you went to that school and remember scuttlebutt about that happening around the time. Then act surprised when the media and Senate contact you and want to get specifics. Immediately delete post and hide.
Funny all of these people that want to talk about this thing until they have to do it in front of the Senate with a possible perjury charge attached to their testimony. Everybody wants to talk....just not to anybody where I could get in trouble if it is found out that I am being less than truthful...except Kavanuagh of course, he has accepted Grassley's invitation to come and sit through a Democrat Party shit show again.
You refuse to consider other possibilities.
As others have said already, there are two sides to this debate on the WC: (1) the angry and strident and uninformed and (2) the concerned and uncertain and uninformed.
Similar threads
