The Democrats knew this was a flimsy case so they kept it on the back burner, otherwise they would have brought it up at the beginning and nuked BK immediately. Presenting it at the very end serves two purposes: firing up their base for the election - and - a chance to delay the proceeding until after the election when they believe they’ll have control. The current delay tactic is a hope that another woman/women will come forward. No one has so far, which must be disappointing to them.
However, in practice, in a “he said, she said” situation where they cannot both be telling the whole truth, it is not surprising that the argument becomes one of character assassination, since it really comes down to convincing relevant others that the other side is less credible than one’s own.
Ucbalumnus, not necessarily. In this case, I believe them both. I think the touching did occur, and he honestly doesn’t remember it or think he would ever do such a thing. Many people are shocked to learn of their actions when drunk.
Thank you, @droppedit . The first link is an article referencing a tweet. I do not agree with that professor’s tweet, but its a personal tweet. Not the direct statement the publication (for obvious reasons- it was Fox news!) The second is an editorial in a British publication. OK. I do appreciate the examples. But IMO thats a bit different than “plenty of people are calling him a rapist… all over the place”. JMO.
I do also agree that the timing of the release of the letter was not handled well, but we are not privvy to how that decision was made. Lots of assumptions purported as fact.
Biden said the FBI investigation for Hill took all of 2 days. I have no idea what the FBI would do in this case, so it could well be a colossal waste. But there is surely some reason why Ford wants it.
Biden also knew of three other women who had sexual harassment complaints about Clarence Thomas and he didn’t let them testify to the Senate. Bad move.
People have also come forward saying they can prove that Kavanaugh knew about the harassment in Kozinsky’s office. Kavanaugh testified under oath that he knew nothing and it was a “gut punch” when he found out. It would be really easy to verify that one, but the committee sat on that letter and did nothing.
His past is already on record and the vetting was closed and a vote was scheduled. The Republicans reopend it so that Ford could come forth with her accusation which I think is a very fair thing although I do think the committee needs to have a side line conversation about the timing which I feel was very improper and Feinstein should be censured within the senate. I think anything else should be off the table other than his teen years and this particular accusation which can be weighed in the context of the vote next week… His adult years are done. The inquiries and vetting is over and anything that needed to be brought up should have been at the time allowed, there should be nothing new about his adult years allowed. If the Dems want to start a perjury case if and when he’s elected they certainly can, but this incessant repeating of this and that is really silly and a real problem in today’s world if it’s actually occurring in the Senate. If the public wants to continue to wring their hands or moan about how unfair politics is or anything short of lunatic death threats to her or lunatics telling his wife that he is a rapist doesn’t matter to me although I think it is really awful behavior and I feel for both of them having to endure crazies.
Did they announce yet when she’s showing up or if they are going to her? I haven’t had time to see what the news feeds are saying. They need to wrap this up before the crazies do something really horrific.
I am struggling with this idea that if this did occur, it is irrelevant since it was 30 years ago. I wonder what makes a 17-year old boy do this, and if it says anything about him as an adult. Of course, people grow up and deserve forgiveness.
Someone above stated that this is a common occurrence in high school. Is this meant to be a justification? If it’s common, does that mean it isn’t deviant behavior? Acceptance of this behavior is like normalizing deviance. (I suppose this is why women are seen as whiners or fragile when they come forward). I find it so disturbing how easily people brush off the events as described as ‘roughhousing’. I am in the camp that believes the vast majority of 17-year old boys don’t behave this way.
Obviously, victim or witness intimidation is not a good thing, but it is not a new thing in cases where a crime is alleged or there is something politically scandalous.
In this digital day and age, quick publicizing their personal information so these threats and harassment can be acted on is really scary. I repeat, what is this world coming to?
Since she remembers so much about what he allegedly did, it would be helpful for an investigation to know when and where the party was and who else was there. Conveniently, those details are missing. Here’s what an investigation gets you on him (much of which has already been revealed in his 6 background checks)- “Yes, I drank in high school. No, I did not sexually assault her.”
whyIdidn'treport is trending right now on Twitter. No dearth of understandable reasons women either wait to report or don't report at all. And yet people continue to ask "if this really happened, why didn't she say anything" in a manner that indicates that not reporting means it didn't happen, and reporting later means it not only didn't happen, but is an outright lie. And by "if this really happened," I'm not referring to this incident in particular.
I understand her not reporting it (if it happened) in high school. I have a real problem with her not reporting it years ago when he was a candidate for the Court of Appeals, and not nsisting that it become public the minute he was nominated for the Supreme Court. The timing of this “revelation” just days before the vote is a travesty and an embarrassment to all involved.
Someone said above that Mark Judge has given a written statement that it would be a felony to lie in. Can someone please find a link? I do not think he has done anything under oath or in writing that has a penalty attached for lying. And he refuses to testify.
I wonder if he would be questioned about whether there are any other incidents of sexual assault or attempted assault, or harassment that he is aware of where he was present. He knows all those GPrep stories that stay at GPrep… It could be a reason he won’t testify.
“It appears this alleged event falls within the definition of sex offense category 4, intentional touching of another person in an intimate manner, without their consent.”
The way I see it no one is claiming this is a matter of a criminal act. It’s not being tried in court and frankly I don’t think anyone, whether it be the accuser or his opponents, cares about guilt or innocence. What they want is for this to disqualify him for the Supreme Court and to do it in a manner that will not allow the President to nominate another candidate before the midterm elections. Whether or not to confirm him is a decision of the senate. The demands being made to question him before her over the incident certainly don’t allow him any due process and they don’t want to allow him to face his accuser. If he were being charged he would have those rights. It’s up to the senate to determine how they wish to proceed. If I were a Senator I think I would want to hear form her first to be able to intelligently query him about her accusations. Once this is settled in my opinion you’ll not hear another word about it unless they think they can catch him lying.
Yup. As to the FBI exactly who are they going to ask? Kavanaugh and friends have already admitted they went to parties and drank beer in high school. Ford says she went to a party and drank one beer. So exactly WHAT part is the FYI going to ask about? How on earth are they going to get all of those people in the same place at the same time when they don’t know where and they don’t know when. Seriously, it is rather ludicrous to think that the FBI is going to “solve this case” before Ford at least makes more information known. Anyone, simply anyone who went to any party as a high schooler with alcohol present could claim to have been assaulted, but you kind of need to know the when and the where for anyone to investigate…let alone 35 years later.
I can see it now:
Q: Brett did you go to parties and drink when you were a teen. A. Yes I did. Q. Was Ms. Ford present at any parties you attended in high school. A. Maybe, I don’t remember her or yes she was at one (a few, none). Q. Did you assault her at any party. A. No.
Q. Ms. Ford did you go to parties and drink when you were in HS. A. Yes not many but I did. Q. You say that Brett was at one of the parties you attended and he assaulted you. When was this party?. A. I’m not sure. Q. Where was the party held?. A. I’m not sure. Q. Who else was at this party? A. His friends blah, blah, blah. Q. Were any of your friends at this party? A I don’t remember. Q. Were you at more than one party at the same time in high school? A. I can’t remember (or no).
Ooookay now we’re getting somewhere. There is simply no point to any investigation for any reason until she can recall some more facts that might lead to people who can actually remember which party and when, if they were there and if they even remember her. Dream on people this is not TV-land where everything gets surfaced in one hour (or at all).