“Maybe the best outcome of this whole mess is the warning to kids that what they say/do at any time can have consequences decades later. I’m not entirely sure that is a good thing, but that is the way it is, so act accordingly.”
I agree with this. Not only with regard to this issue, and what kids might post on social media, but kids who might end up in law/politics/government in 30-40 years time will need to be extremely careful about all sorts of other potentially disqualifying things from a very early age. Did they file a tax return as a teenager and forget to report their babysitting income? After college, did they hire a cleaner or gardener without knowing their immigration status? Did they report any payments of over $600 to the IRS?
And even if you are (apparently) squeeky clean, you might still have a mob come after you and your family for purely political reasons (e.g. what happened to the FCC chairman over net neutrality). I’ve seen my S18, who has wanted to be in politics since elementary school, become much more doubtful about whether it’s worth considering any more.
I confused the 200 number with the story in the link you posted above. Link is below re Kavanaugh, it was 65 women, not 200. So –
–65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school signed a letter in support of him
–24 women who attended high school with Dr. Ford signed a letter in support of her (per your 2nd link)
For the record, the first link you posted is about a letter signed by alums of Dr. Ford’s school who attended the school anywhere from 1967 to 2018. Given the time period it covers for the alum base, I think it’s fair to draw the conclusion that some of those signers did not know her in high school and are simply signing in general support of women speaking out, rather than making a personal attestation to her character.
Politics is one thing. Judicial nomination is another. Politicians don’t go through any sort of FBI background check to my knowledge. Voters will forgive lots of very bad behavior in voting in or retaining a Senator or representative or president. It must grate on the judicial and other nominees to know that while their background is gone over with a fine tooth comb they are being questioned and sometime voted against by people who have done the same or worse than they have.
I have no idea which of them is telling the truth… I also don’t necessarily think that this incident, even if true, is disqualifying IF it’s the only thing he’s done wrong in that vein. I find plenty of things about Kavanaugh that, to me, are disqualifying, but this isn’t automatically one of them.
I will say that just because someone doesn’t speak about an incident that occurred in the past doesn’t necessarily mean it never happened or that it was summoned up during a repressed memory therapy session. As I said, I have not spoken of my assault to anyone but my H and the last time I spoke about it with him was before our first child was born. I still can conjure up in my mind every feeling and emotion I had about my incident, even though I have not uttered one word about it in almost 30 years. Unless Chrissy Ford was black out drunk, she remembers what did and didn’t happen and so does Kavanaugh.
That is not evidence of sexual assault. That is just evidence of underage drinking. (Hint: there are thousands of kids that get rip roaring drunk and do not assault someone.)
And if he was “blackout drunk” of course he won’t remember the events. So he can claim that.
As for these not-so-veiled insults, calling the report a “tale”? c’mon.
Right now she has gotten death threats, had her email hacked, and has moved out of her home and gone into hiding after alt-right sites posted her home address. But hey. No consequences.
Yes the psychology profession is generally left-leaning, but silly claims about what percent of all in the field are “vehemently anti Trump” is just hyperbole.
And if this was all made up for some political game playing (for arguments Sake) she could potentially lose her professional license and perhaps her academic position on an ethics violation. And if she has ongoing reason to fear her or her families safety, she might need to consider relocating and may have to sacrifice her academic position. To downplay these potential consequences is outrageous.
“Doesn’t the FBI need to go to a federal judge and show some indication that a federal crime may have been committed before a federal judge will issue the subpoena?”
No. You may be confusing a subpoena with a search warrant. Congressional committees have independent subpoena power that does not require the involvement of a judge. This is a civil power, not criminal.
It is the responsibility of the Senate to provide advice and consent regarding judicial nominees. It can use its investigatory powers to seek information it finds helpful to that process. It needs no indication of criminal or civil wrongdoing in order to exercise that power.
I believe that you are taking the above out of context. In post 1400, greenwith posted that “Anyone can be subpoenaed by the FBI, or by the Senate Committee.”
I agree with the latter, but not the former. Or, am I incorrect, in that the FBI can subpoena anyone they choose?
I absolutely believe she is getting threats of violence and death. Almost all will be from people who couldn’t or wouldn’t follow through, but how do you know which are which? If you told me she wasn’t I would think you were either lying or uninformed and naïve. Anyone who inserts himself/herself very publicly and pivotally into an issue as prominent and controversial as a Supreme Court nomination would get the same. That’s a sad commentary on life today, but it is objective reality.
So…what the heck did she think was going to happen? Anything this president does is controversial, a SC nomination even more so. So she sends letters to her congresswoman and Senator, notifies the Washington Post (anonymously or off-the-record, not sure which), hires a lawyer, takes a lie detector, and thinks what? That it will all be handled quietly and out of the spotlight? Yes, she told the Congresswoman and Senator that she wanted to remain anonymous. A woman with a PhD thought 2 politicians could keep a secret? When keeping it would let this candidate be confirmed? She gave a lethal weapon to a veteran lawmaker and dealmaker and expected her not to use it?
If her social circle overlapped with BKs in high school she likely followed his career, that’s not hard to imagine. I do it, my kids do it. We know when someone we knew back then starts making it big.
Probably something bad and scary happened to her when she was a teenager. Who knows, maybe that’s why she went into psychology. But she cant seem to make a good case for BK being the perpetrator, and it is baffling why she threw her information out there knowing that.