If you buy this, what would you call the Pubs obstructing hundreds of judicial nominations by Obama (in addition to Garland)?
Personally, I think Christine Blasey-Ford is telling the truth. She mentioned the assault in couples therapy in 2012, a later individual therapy session and passed a polygraph test. That being said, it's still a case of he said/she said and her statements do not come anywhere near the standard for a criminal conviction, which is the standard of proof that the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee will use in determining whether or not to confirm Kavanaugh. In the end there's a very high probability that he will be confirmed. That being said his confirmation could have the effect of mobilizing female voters not unlike the way the treatment of Anita Hill mobilized women in 1992.
That was terrible …. but off-topic and not relevant to the Kavanaugh hearing and the matter of Ford's allegation …. and Feinstein's handling of tis matter.
Perhaps I am misreading what you are trying to say in 1109. I assumed you were aiming that at me. If not, I guess I don't get how that was meant, or whom it was aimed at, if any one.
Isn't the Pubs obstruction of all judicial nominations that last year of Obama's presidency likely a reason for the Dems trying to do whatever they can in retaliation? That's a big problem with all this political divisiveness and partisan gamesmanship that appears to have no concern for the public good. It's just a race to the bottom, with both sides engaged in behavior that is no good for the country.
She won't because she's not that "confident" that she's even remembering what happened... if it happened at all. They will find out that she is far to vague and ambiguous to take all that Kavanaugh has done and flush his life's work down the tubes for this kind uncorroborated testimony. This is great news because when the next judge "retires" it's going to take all the bullets out of the Dem's gun. They can only play this game once if they lose... and Kavanaugh is confirmed.
I think the opposite actually. There is no way this goes down like Anita Hill. In this environment with metoo and the GOP already having a problem with women voters, it's far more likely that he doesn't get confirmed. If she comes off as sympathetic and the hearing will lack the grilling of years past, then they don't risk losing the election over this. They could still possibly jam another nominee through in the lame duck session, though there would be all kinds of flack over that if they indeed lose the senate (which is still unlikely from everything I have read). But if she refuses to testify, then she lets them off the hook. They just say they gave her the opportunity to testify and she didn't, then they go ahead and confirm. Otherwise they have to take the temperature of the electorate after the testimony and decide if they can go ahead, which is unlikely IMO unless she totally flubs the hearing.
IMO, as expressed earlier in the topic, those who did not care about the many allegations against Bill Clinton yet …. are (1) calling for delaying the vote on Judge Kavanaugh and (2) demanding an unprecedented investigation of this 35 year old allegation by the FBI are disingenuous and morally inconsistent when it comes to the treatment of women.
Ok. I can agree with that. Investigate Clinton. Investigate Trump. Investigate everyone with sexual assault allegations against them. Or other criminal allegations for that matter. That doesn't change how any one case should be handled. Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that there weren't investigations into sexual assault allegations against Clinton or Trump doesn't mean that we just ignore other sexual assault allegations. Setting a very low bar and dropping everything down to it is no way run a country.
So …. are you saying this entire matter …. the allegation against Kavanaugh …. is nothing more than a political "tit for tat"? I think it is. I think it's a "natural" partisan reaction arising form the political insanity brought on by Clinton's loss to The Donald. I guess the difference is the "pubs" were able to derail Obama's nominee without the (likely?, possible?) fabrication of allegations of sexual misconduct ........ the destruction of a man's character and the ancillary collateral damage of how this will impact his family. My goodness …. just think about how this has impacted his personal life ….. his wife …… and his two daughters.
Agree this is an absolute no win situation for this guy and his family. Particularly horrible if he is completely innocent of the claims being made. But Ford's story started long before Kavanaugh's rise to this nomination. Who knows to what extent Ford's memories are accurate. There's always three sides to every story. But what she went through was also traumatic for her. So traumatic it resulted in therapy years later. And so traumatic today that she has received death threats and felt she had to evacuate her family from their home. There are no "winners" in this episode for these two people or their families. There will be political winners and losers who don't care about either of these people or their families.
Actually ….. one could reasonably argue that he handling of allegations against Bill Clinton and The Donald set precedence as to how these claims "will be" handled. Perhaps it's not the best form but ……. why go after Kavanaugh given the circumstances when Clinton was allowed to walk, and the The Donald …. may? Circumstances of the allegations against Kavanaugh and how the matter was handled by Ford, Feinstein, etal do not serve to support the credibility of said allegations.
As to the nature of the politics, I think it has been a long term evolution of increasingly shit ass behavior with no real regard for the good of the country from both parties. We could point to the Dems doing tit for tat with the Pubs obstruction of nominations, but this stuff really goes back decades now.
Corey Booker - looks like his POTUS ambitions are sunk: Booker's push for Kavanaugh vote delay called out over his 1992 column detailing teenage groping Booker's push for Kavanaugh vote delay called out over his 1992 column detailing teenage groping "New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker is facing accusations of hypocrisy over his calls to delay the confirmation vote of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh amid sexual misconduct allegations, as he once admitted groping a friend without her consent in high school."
The problem is that you have to work from an assumption here: that he didn't do it. If he did it, then he caused that pain, not the victim. You are victim shaming in a roundabout way with no indication that she isn't a victim other than not wanting her to be one. Here is a suggestion: let's try to find out what is correct rather than just assuming it based upon what we prefer.
Ehhhh... He's been pretty much assumed to be an eventual GOP SCOTUS nominee, under literally any GOP president, since essentially the day W. put him on the D.C. Circuit in 2006. And, wouldn't you know it, literally the second vacancy under a Republican president since he went on the bench and he's been nominated to fill it.
