You are correct about the FBI and background checks. Feinstein held this until the b-check was completed—assuming those are done prior to confirmation hearings.
Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
You are correct about the FBI and background checks. Feinstein held this until the b-check was completed—assuming those are done prior to confirmation hearings.
Again, I’m taking this with a grain of salt. But I don’t care how old a person is, I think attempted rape is more than a small skeleton in a closet.
It’s simple for me. Until there is some convincing evidence it’s just an unsupported allegation. People are innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, While Trump also deserves that basic assumption, there is plenty of convincing evidence that he’s a pretty despicable human being. These two people are not the same by any stretch of the imagination.
Innocent until proven guilty is a protection for criminal procedure, not for public relations. And when it comes to that, how convincing the evidence is that a person is pretty despicable shouldn't matter. The prosecutor needs to prove the case, or the guy is innocent. Period.
But we're not talking about criminal. We're talking about public perception. In that realm, it's up to each individual to determine who does and does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, and for what topics. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" maxim in this context.
OK, if all that ever comes from this is this unsupported allegation I will consider him absolutely innocent. Wouldn’t most objective people?
Probably. I just thought you were a bit sloppy with your statement there. You seemed to imply there was some important "innocent until proven guilty" principle at play, but then admitted Trump wouldn't get the same benefit. But that particular principle applies to all equally, regardless of how awful they are. But it also only applies in a specific context. That's all.
Your first sentence is accurate, but is the opposite of the song you sang when Hillary Clinton's constant continuing criminality was the point of discussion.
If it were me, I would have immediately met with the complaint to determine credibility, and if credible, turned the matter over to the FBI, on condition the individual go public.
The way Feinstein handled it is terrible for Kavanaugh. She made it worse by going public after sitting on it for months. I think her conduct was deliberate and is highly unethical.
Maybe pretend like he gives a shit about the victim or her story instead of only caring about politics?
Her actions are disappointing. She’s one senator I actually thought had some ethics. Her only purpose was sliming Kavanaugh at the very end. The truth wasn’t important.
That’s the letter I was referencing . Again, because he didn’t assault 65 women doesn’t mean he didn’t assault one.
She didn't go public. She was forced. Probably by other Dems who thought she should have made it a thing. But I fail to see what her failure was here.
It's only a small skeleton if you own what happened and express contrition. Otherwise, it's something you never learned from. If there is any truth to Kavanaugh being involved in something regrettable here when he was young, I'd be disappointed in him denying it. That would point to a larger problem for me than many offenses in this arena.
My 91 year old grandma, who is a due in the wool D said tonight that "this happened in high school, and I'm afraid that the Democrats are grasping at straws." They can't do anything to stop Kavanaugh, unfortunately, and this isn't it.
The Dems are led by former hall monitors. It's why they lose.
Completely agree. Need to focus on winning elections so we aren't in this shit position in the first place.
The Dems are led by the people who wanted to be hall monitors, but weren't responsible enough.
They also wanted to be popular, but were too big of losers to be future Republicans.
According to the report by Farrow and Mayer I linked above, Feinstein unsuccessfully tried to suppress the letter, but was pressured into releasing it to the FBI as knowledge of its existence spread. Many of her fellow Democrats -- with whom she refused to share the letter -- are pissed at her. If this reporting is accurate (and Farrow and Mayer are two of the best right now), then you've completely miscast Feinstein, who didn't want the letter to come out at all, as the villain of a plot to produce it at the 11th hour.
I like how you had the gentle nature to make this an "if" proposition.
Feinstein has never been a partisan bomb-thrower, and even without the reporting by Farrow and Mayer it would strain credulity that she's suddenly become one here. But too many believe whatever they choose, even if it makes little sense.
Feinstein caught flak today for not being partisan enough. The Dems are the ones who complained. But as soon as "complain" and "Feinstein" hit the airwaves, the Usual Suspects jumped on board to explain why she was evil incarnate.
IF that’s true than I’d change my mind about whether she should be censured.
The article goes farther, saying she didn't want to drag the woman through what the Pubs would do to her and wanted to defeat Kavanaugh through the legal side of things because that would make the Dems look better. So there are elements of kindness and political tactics involved, but none of deserving anything remotely censure.
Pressure from other unethical people isn’t an excuse to be unethical yourself. Down deep you know doing this at the end after having it two months isn’t right.
Have you disclosed what your new name will be next week?
You have no consideration for what this is doing to Kavanaugh if this is a false accusation or false memory or otherwise isn’t true? If there is no supporting evidence whatsoever, isn’t this solely a cheap political tactic by the Democrats?
How do you think knowledge of the the letter leaked and spread? It had to come from Feinstein or her high staff? No?
In any event, Feinstein should have either pursued it or burned from the get go. Sitting on a possible bombshell was not a reasonable alternative. Kavanaugh was not my first choice of the finalists, we could have had a different nominee.
True, Feinstein has not been a conspicuous bomb thrower. But she sat on this letter and she was in exclusive control of it. The story blew up in a manner to do the most damage to Kavanaugh. Darrow and Mayer are merely reporting what the Feinstein camp would be expected to say.
Short story....his prior username was Latin for telling someone to go have relations with themselves.....but nobody realized (or cared) for a long while.
Since it was Latin, he said it very respectfully. . .or something.
Perhaps this list was just a prophylactic measure given the #MeToo hysteria but there is at least a 50-50 chance that this was a signal by the committee majority that they knew of the allegation and were willing to burn to the ground the unnamed complainant with a wall of counter-narrative should any of Kavanaugh's DNA start appearing on random Coke cans. This leaves Feinstein holding a letter that she has to do something with and she makes the best play available. She goes full-Kamala-Harris and throws innuendo about like confetti knowing that a placid and compliant press will run with whatever she tells them.
Or kneel while you're typing the post. Either will do.
Similar threads
