Nah, it was in context. The truth is always important. You tried a poor argument (start with a strawman and then declare that the strawman proves why truth doesn't matter). There is the full context. I don't know. That is up to them. And we can react to that appropriately. But truth still matters because it allows people to react based upon it, which is always optimal.
She is going to continue to be mocked if she hedges on testifying because then you have to question her motives for delaying. I guess that's what made me wonder who is advising her because the investigation in the context of the congress is standing up before a committee and telling your story and answering questions. That's how congress investigates. The FBI is the investigative arm of the executive branch. The background checks they did are on behalf of the president who is making the appointment. And again, the committee is going to treat her with kit gloves because they can go either way on this depending on whether she comes off sympathetic or not. The last thing they want to do is look like assholes berating a victim just a few months ahead of the election. I'm sure there will be a few tough questions and trying to catch her on inconsistencies, but the tone will be nothing like what Kavanaugh went through.
Are you suggesting Democrats will now change their vote in favor of Kavanaugh after the investigation, if nothing come from it? Or Republicans actually care about women? That's news to me... I thought Republicans could give a damn about women....
One of which specifically refers to a federal judge while she was in high school. Georgetown is pretty elite, but I doubt that list is that long.
I don't think every Democrat has even committed to a certain vote. Don't know, that is up to them. Perhaps they care about women. Perhaps they care about looking like they care about women. Perhaps not. Again, that is up to them. The truth is still important, because it illuminates more.
She wants an investigation because if she goes in front of that committee, it's her word vs. his. Maybe an investigation uncovers corroboration that helps her. That's why I believe she wants it. Otherwise, she stands up and gives them her side. Kavanaugh denies it ever happened. And the Republicans get to pretend like that's all there is. Maybe they confirm him. Maybe they don't.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/pj-smyth-brett-kavanaugh/index.html?r=https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ Patrick J. Smyth attended Georgetown Prep -- an all-boys school in North Bethesda, Maryland -- alongside Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983. Smyth signed a letter this summer, before the allegations against Kavanaugh were made public, testifying that Kavanaugh "is singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court," along with dozen other of the school's alumni. "I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
They will likely try to keep this as pure a he-said, she-said situation as possible strategically even if it doesn't need to remain that way. I doubt they berate her. At least one Republican has said that he doesn't even have questions for her. I think that is the issue. The FBI is both better at investigating and is not motivated to try to avoid finding out more (as the status quo is fine to the Senate Committee).
It's still her word vs. his if the FBI looks into it because they were the only ones in the room (as long as the other guy continues to deny being there and not participating). What else are they going to find? Some friends that heard rumors at school? That's hearsay. The core evidence is the testimony of those two people and that's what the congress wants to hear.
I think so. Are you just picking random right-wing boogeymen (and women) now or is there a specific point to those two?
This isn't a criminal case. Hearsay is irrelevant. It's about establishing who is more credible. Her version of events looks very credible if it's shown that she has been telling the same story for years, long before Kavanaugh was nominated to SCOTUS. That takes the argument that this was invented as a political ploy away from Republicans. And, of course, if it was talked about back then at her school, that would only lend more credence to her version of events.
Find out what? They will hear the same story as congress will. Both of them will get up there and read prepared statements representing their stories and some questions will be asked, though probably not tough ones in her case. If anything the FBI would be more able to tear holes in her account since they are not sitting in front of the TV cameras and worried about getting reelected.
To some extent, you are right that there will be some level that this will always be her word versus his. However, if it turns out that he was at that party, that impeaches his credibility. Establishing the parameters around their words is important.
No... just the most outspoken Democrats at these hearings... I swear... It should be a rule, that if you've already decided on how you will vote, you shouldn't be allowed to ask questions in these sorts of hearings... You're just wasting time...
The differences in context are obvious. So let's say that we are trying to find where the party took place. Is the senate panel going to go through what she does remember (e.g., about how long do you think it was away from the pool? what color was the house? how about the room? What colored shirt was he wearing?) to try to find out if those minor pieces of information can lead them to more important information? That is the type of thing professional investigators do. Which is a good thing (sort of; police have often mishandled sexual violence cases by trying to poke holes in cases based upon memory issues, but in general, the investigation should lead to where it leads without the political considerations driving it). Again, I don't know what happened. If she is found to be lying about something, I would want to know that.
