Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-08-2018, 01:10 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,067
What was Feinstein expecting before releasing Ford's letter?

This is probably open only to speculation, so maybe this is more of an IMHO than a Great Debate, but one thing that I have not seen addressed about the Kavanaugh debacle is:

We know that Diane Feinstein had been sitting on the Ford letter and released it only very late into the Kavanaugh hearings process. I can understand that she was reluctant to do so due to the fact that Professor Ford requested it be kept secret. In the end, when it seemed that Kavanaugh's nomination proceeding to the Senate floor was inevitable, she felt she had no choice. I can respect that.

What I'm wondering about is as follows: the Judiciary Committee had a Republican majority all along. They weren't likely to find disqualifying fault in his judicial philosophy, or his work for Ken Starr or his work for George W Bush. His performance on the Circuit Court does not seem to have been particularly controversial, especially given the Republican majority. So...what was she thinking might happen before that point to stop the nomination from going forward before she felt she had to resort to blowing Prof. Ford's secret? Was she hoping that someone more willing to reveal would have a similar allegation? Did she think that he had made rulings that are unpopular enough with Republicans to get some of the majority to reject him? Basically, why did she not think until the likely end of the hearings that the Ford bombshell would be necessary to potentially derail Kavanaugh's path to the Supreme Court?
  #2  
Old 10-08-2018, 01:14 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,130
First, she adamantly denies her or her office leaking the letter to the media. Although as you point out above that she had plenty of motivation. It is my understanding that only Feinstein, Representative Eshoo, and Dr. Ford herself, were the only ones that had copies of the letter. But assuming that it was Feinstein that did leak it as you suggest, she clearly was hoping to de-rail the nomination. A long shot, but worth her attempt.
  #3  
Old 10-08-2018, 01:48 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
Basically, why did she not think until the likely end of the hearings that the Ford bombshell would be necessary to potentially derail Kavanaugh's path to the Supreme Court?
Nothing had worked. I have no idea what else she thought might derail the nomination, but there wasn't anything.

It might have been the triumph of hope over expectation - "maybe I won't have to out Dr. Ford, and some other mud will stick". It didn't - all the stuff about how he lied had been hashed over years earlier, the notion that he was neck-deep in gambling debts was a wet squib, Kavanaugh did the by-now-standard "I am not going to talk about possible future cases" so she couldn't paint him as an anti-abortion extremist (not that they didn't try), but she was playing mostly to her base. Nothing stuck, so it was "fuck your privacy, honey, we're desperate" and things happened as they happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little
It is my understanding that only Feinstein, Representative Eshoo, and Dr. Ford herself, were the only ones that had copies of the letter.
And their respective staffs. Dr. Ford said she only went public after she had been outed against her will, which kind of narrows down the list of possible leakers.

Regards,
Shodan
  #4  
Old 10-08-2018, 01:48 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,878
Feinstein's office didn't leak the letter. Feinstein denies it AND the Intercept (the website that first publicized the allegations) denies it. It was only after the Intercept published the allegations that Feinstein released the letter.
  #5  
Old 10-08-2018, 01:55 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
Feinstein's office didn't leak the letter. Feinstein denies it AND the Intercept (the website that first publicized the allegations) denies it. It was only after the Intercept published the allegations that Feinstein released the letter.
My understanding is that whoever leaked "it" did not actually leak the letter. Or, if they did, they redacted Ford's name. Reporters started snooping around, and Ford feared that they would figure her out in short order, so she decided to get control of the narrative before that happened.

Ford had also talked to the Washington Post, so it's possible someone there was the source of the leak.
  #6  
Old 10-08-2018, 03:37 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,172
The thing Feinstein was hoping for was that the situation would magically resolve itself without her having to do anything herself. She sat on the letter until it was apparent it was going to come out with or without her, not because it was some diabolical plot, but because lacked the will to act until her hand was forced.
  #7  
Old 10-08-2018, 03:57 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The thing Feinstein was hoping for was that the situation would magically resolve itself without her having to do anything herself. She sat on the letter until it was apparent it was going to come out with or without her, not because it was some diabolical plot, but because lacked the will to act until her hand was forced.
What part of "She didn't release it" isn't being understood here?
  #8  
Old 10-08-2018, 04:35 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What part of "She didn't release it" isn't being understood here?
I didn't use the word release.
  #9  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:37 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
My understanding is that whoever leaked "it" did not actually leak the letter. Or, if they did, they redacted Ford's name. Reporters started snooping around, and Ford feared that they would figure her out in short order, so she decided to get control of the narrative before that happened.

Ford had also talked to the Washington Post, so it's possible someone there was the source of the leak.
I thought Intercept stated that they had the letter received from an anonymous source. Did Ford give the Washington Post the letter? Given her desire for anonymity that doesn't sound like she would have given them a letter she sent to Senator Feinstein.
  #10  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:50 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller cmkeller is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,067
My mistake in fingering Feinstein. I had gotten the impression from the overall story - including posts on this board - that unfolded that it was she who had done so.

If it was some other party, then it's entirely possible they never knew about Ford until that time.

Last edited by cmkeller; 10-08-2018 at 05:50 PM.
  #11  
Old 10-08-2018, 05:55 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,911
Politico - McConnell calls for investigation into leak of Ford letter

Maybe we'll eventually find out who leaked it.
  #12  
Old 10-08-2018, 06:21 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,401
Three people can keep a secret if two are dead, and I believe more than three people knew from whom came that letter. And staff DO go rogue/mole and will boldly and calmly look the boss right in the eye and say "not me" when asked.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 10-08-2018 at 06:21 PM.
  #13  
Old 10-08-2018, 06:30 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
I thought Intercept stated that they had the letter received from an anonymous source. Did Ford give the Washington Post the letter? Given her desire for anonymity that doesn't sound like she would have given them a letter she sent to Senator Feinstein.
I don't know if she gave them the letter. But she spoke with them early on about the letter and its contents, so they knew. Needless to say, they were eager to get her permission to publish.

We know of 3 sources the leak could have come from, and there could very have been more. I don't think Feinstein would lie about leaking it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone on her staff did. Or on Eshoo's staff. Not saying they did, but a denial isn't firm evidence that it didn't happen.
  #14  
Old 10-08-2018, 06:42 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,911
As food for thought, I'm not certain Feinstein is the most credible source on what her staff has or has not done.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-08-2018 at 06:45 PM.
  #15  
Old 10-08-2018, 06:42 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Politico - McConnell calls for investigation into leak of Ford letter

Maybe we'll eventually find out who leaked it.
I just love when Republicans pretend they care about the life and reputation of someone they spent several weeks disparaging and minimizing, both for political purposes. DARVO, motherfuckers. It's the GOP way.
  #16  
Old 10-08-2018, 06:49 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
I just love when Republicans pretend they care about the life and reputation of someone they spent several weeks disparaging and minimizing, both for political purposes. DARVO, motherfuckers. It's the GOP way.
I don't know who you're calling "motherfuckers" here, but my post certainly wasn't an attempt to claim that I "care about" Ford. I'm unclear on how it could even be read / interpreted as such. My concern is that Feinstein may be a liar and a leaker, or may have one on her staff with access to confidential information.
  #17  
Old 10-08-2018, 07:11 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,878
I wasn't calling you, personally, that. And I wasn't commenting on you posting that, I was commenting on McTurtle's idiot attempt to pretend that the Senate GOP is actually concerned for how the "Democrat party" used and abused Dr. Blasey Ford. As if.
  #18  
Old 10-08-2018, 08:38 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,863
Let them investigate. But you can't talk to anyone but Feinstein and Eshoo, and only have a week to do it.
  #19  
Old 10-08-2018, 10:40 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Three people can keep a secret if two are dead, and I believe more than three people knew from whom came that letter. And staff DO go rogue/mole and will boldly and calmly look the boss right in the eye and say "not me" when asked.
As far as I can tell, Feinstein seems to have come to the conclusion that the claims were not a useful line of attack by late August. It seems most likely that it was released by someone on her staff with more idealism than sense.
Certainly the way it was released was not optimal for her or Prof Ford.
  #20  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:31 AM
Tom Terrific Tom Terrific is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 268
My question is, what did Dr. Ford expect to happen when she wrote the letter? What good is a letter accusing someone of disqualifying conduct if it is a secret? IMHO it was written to be used exactly as it was used. As a last second bombshell.
  #21  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:36 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Terrific View Post
My question is, what did Dr. Ford expect to happen when she wrote the letter? What good is a letter accusing someone of disqualifying conduct if it is a secret?
This baffles me as well. If I try to be as charitable as possible to Dr. Ford, I assume that doing so was therapeutic for her in some way. I'm open to other, charitable explanations but that's the best I can come up with.
  #22  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:05 AM
YamatoTwinkie YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
This baffles me as well. If I try to be as charitable as possible to Dr. Ford, I assume that doing so was therapeutic for her in some way. I'm open to other, charitable explanations but that's the best I can come up with.
Charitable interpretation:
Dr. Ford had something horrible happen to her, wanted to do her civic duty and tell someone involved in the nomination/selection process about it, but wasn't at all prepared for the media exposure that would inevitably occur, *especially if it was just her*. She was hoping that the letter would be enough to either prompt a deeper investigation that would possibly dig up a bunch of other fellow accusers (allowing her to shed her anonymity if she chose to) or perhaps by itself be the straw that broke the back of the nomination outright.
  #23  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:45 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
This baffles me as well. If I try to be as charitable as possible to Dr. Ford, I assume that doing so was therapeutic for her in some way. I'm open to other, charitable explanations but that's the best I can come up with.
Possibly that she was extremely naive about the way Washington works? She did, after all, write the letter originally to her Congressperson. If she remembered some basic civics, she might have recalled that the House of Representatives doesn't deal with judicial nominations.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-09-2018 at 10:49 AM.
  #24  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:37 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
This baffles me as well. If I try to be as charitable as possible to Dr. Ford, I assume that doing so was therapeutic for her in some way. I'm open to other, charitable explanations but that's the best I can come up with.
Much the same thing as with Anita Hill - she thought/hoped that an anonymous accusation would be enough to get Kavanaugh to withdraw. And, she was naÔve enough to believe that the rhetoric about respecting the confidentiality of victims was going to mean something, even when compared with the chance of throwing a stink bomb into the process. Presumably she knows better now.

I don't know how charitable that is, but it makes sense whether she believed herself or not. Whether she wanted to stop the nom purely out of political spite, or because she honestly thought it was him that attacked all those years ago, best-case scenario for her is to stay unknown - she would have got what she wanted either way.

Regards,
Shodan
  #25  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:45 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Terrific View Post
My question is, what did Dr. Ford expect to happen when she wrote the letter? What good is a letter accusing someone of disqualifying conduct if it is a secret? IMHO it was written to be used exactly as it was used. As a last second bombshell.
From Dr. Ford's letter...

Quote:
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
She had no expectation that it would be secret forever.
  #26  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:16 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,297
I'm more curious about what Ford was expecting.

Obviously, she would not have sent that letter if she didn't expect anything to come of it. She did not want Kavanaugh on the court. That could not happen if this was meant for Feinstein's eyes only. If it was for Feinstein's eyes only, the only thing Feinstein could do was not vote for Kavanaugh, which she wasn't going to do anyway.

We know that Feinstein could have forwarded the letter to the FBI immediately if she thought it had any merit, and that the investigation between Ford and Kavanaugh could have happened behind the scenes. I very much doubt it would have amounted to anything, but it could at least potentially do something besides alter a single Senator's vote, and Ford would have had a much better chance at remaining anonymous.

Why didn't Feinstein do that?
  #27  
Old 10-09-2018, 02:33 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 25,124
[QUOTE=Shodan;21255206]And their respective staffs. Dr. Ford said she only went public after she had been outed against her will, which kind of narrows down the list of possible leakers.
/QUOTE]

As far as I understand it, Ford had also, after she sent the letter, told friends she had done so and why. The story that there was a letter could have been leaked by one of them.
__________________
If you will it, it is no dream.
  #28  
Old 10-09-2018, 02:40 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Obviously, she would not have sent that letter if she didn't expect anything to come of it. She did not want Kavanaugh on the court. That could not happen if this was meant for Feinstein's eyes only. If it was for Feinstein's eyes only, the only thing Feinstein could do was not vote for Kavanaugh, which she wasn't going to do anyway.
Have you read her letter? Have you read the bit I quoted a couple posts ago?

Quote:
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
She didn't want Feinstein sworn to secrecy for life. She wanted Feinstein to be aware of the matter and possibly open a dialogue about it.
  #29  
Old 10-09-2018, 02:55 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,921
Why is the word of the Intercept not enough? Just because the source is anonymous to the public doesn't mean the source is anonymous to them.

It would be highly unusual for any credible news organization to accept the word of an anonymous source without verifying the validity of the source -- including the identity of that source.

So either the Intercept is lying -- not a good thing for their credibility, and you shouldn't accept their claim at all one way or the other -- or they're not lying and credible, in which case you have to accept their assertion that the anonymous source is not Feinstein or her staff.
  #30  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:05 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Why is the word of the Intercept not enough? Just because the source is anonymous to the public doesn't mean the source is anonymous to them.

It would be highly unusual for any credible news organization to accept the word of an anonymous source without verifying the validity of the source -- including the identity of that source.

So either the Intercept is lying -- not a good thing for their credibility, and you shouldn't accept their claim at all one way or the other -- or they're not lying and credible, in which case you have to accept their assertion that the anonymous source is not Feinstein or her staff.
Or they are lying to protect their source.

Washington DC is a city of leaks. This was a juicy one. Protect the source of the juice (it was probably a staffer either of Feinstein's or Eshoo's), and hope for further morsels down the line.

Regards,
Shodan
  #31  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:08 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Or they are lying to protect their source.

Washington DC is a city of leaks. This was a juicy one. Protect the source of the juice (it was probably a staffer either of Feinstein's or Eshoo's), and hope for further morsels down the line.

Regards,
Shodan
Most credible journalists don't lie. They simply say, "No comment." That's not what happened here. The affirmatively denied it.

You'd have to make your case that they lied.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 10-09-2018 at 03:09 PM.
  #32  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:20 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Most credible journalists don't lie. They simply say, "No comment." That's not what happened here. The affirmatively denied it.

You'd have to make your case that they lied.
They said that no one from Feinstein’s office gave them the letter. That’s a pretty wide and imprecise statement.
You think that political staffers don’t know how to leak in a way that it is deniable for all parties even after investigation?
There are about a dozen ways someone on Feinstein’s staff could have leaked the informations and still have The Intercept truthfully say no one from Feinstein’s office leaked it.

Last edited by AK84; 10-09-2018 at 03:22 PM.
  #33  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:43 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Most credible journalists don't lie. They simply say, "No comment." That's not what happened here. The affirmatively denied it.

You'd have to make your case that they lied.
Not exactly. You asked
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow
Why is the word of the Intercept not enough?
Because I am not prepared to accept them as credible in this instance.

I am not claiming I could prove it in a court of law. If the idea is that they would never stoop to such depravity as lying to protect a source, well, your belief in the stainless honor of the press corps, who would never, ever do anything untoward to foment a scandal is touching in a way all too rare in this naughty world.

Regards,
Shodan
  #34  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:47 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Not exactly. You asked Because I am not prepared to accept them as credible in this instance.

<snip>
IOW, the information doesn't support the narrative you want to push.

If you think they're prone to lying, I wonder why you accept them as credible ever.
  #35  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:49 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
They said that no one from Feinsteinís office gave them the letter. Thatís a pretty wide and imprecise statement.
You think that political staffers donít know how to leak in a way that it is deniable for all parties even after investigation?
There are about a dozen ways someone on Feinsteinís staff could have leaked the informations and still have The Intercept truthfully say no one from Feinsteinís office leaked it.
Yup. And if/when you have actual proof of that, your entire argument will have some basis in fact. Unless/until then, lots and lots of things are possible.
  #36  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:52 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,377
Funny how conservatives believe Kavanaugh when he says he never blacked out despite liking beer liking beer liking beer liking beer liking beer (did I mention liking beer?) but won't believe a journalist when they say that they got something from a different source.
  #37  
Old 10-09-2018, 04:12 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Funny how conservatives believe Kavanaugh when he says he never blacked out despite liking beer liking beer liking beer liking beer liking beer (did I mention liking beer?) but won't believe a journalist when they say that they got something from a different source.
I'd like to say that something about the intellectual acrobatics required to believe the things they do surprises me... but it no longer does.
  #38  
Old 10-09-2018, 04:19 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,186
I'm not sure what finding the leaker solves. I suppose it is damaging to Feinstein if she is proved to be the one who did it but she has weathered worse and will carry on. If it is an intercept reporter it may end that reporter's career. Or perhaps a fall-guy on staff. In the end it does not change much except to scare future leakers.

As to what the person hoped to achieve they almost certainly wanted to derail the Kavanaugh nomination.

That was almost impossible to happen though. Republicans wanted to see to it Kavanaugh got affirmed before the midterms and Trump almost certainly wants Kavanaugh in particular for his expansive views on the executive (something I think Roberts shares to an extent).

Republicans are pretty shameless when it comes to caring about sexual impropriety among their members. Even pedophiles are tolerated. Short of some smoking-gun evidence to crucify Kavanaugh with nothing was going to stop republicans from getting him on the court.

Perhaps the allegations will rally the democrat base but then it served to rally the republican base too. Maybe even a little more (there is a discussion about that around here somewhere) although it seems to not have done a whole lot either way.

Maybe Taylor Swift decided to become political because of this. That had some noticeable impact in getting young voters to register.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #39  
Old 10-10-2018, 07:59 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
If you think they're prone to lying, I wonder why you accept them as credible ever.
There are very few news sources who I will accept at face value, without checking it against other sources where possible, and without taking their possible motives into consideration. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:01 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
She didn't want Feinstein sworn to secrecy for life. She wanted Feinstein to be aware of the matter and possibly open a dialogue about it.
Okay, so why didn't Feinstein talk to her? All I've heard is that Feinstein's staff said it was "taken care of". I still do not know what that means.
  #41  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:06 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,575
I think Ford was just used as a political pawn. Do we really think Feinstein truly cared about her inner feelings? Wasnt she more after the larger political picture?

Last edited by Urbanredneck; 10-10-2018 at 10:07 AM.
  #42  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:22 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,580
What was Feinstein expecting before releasing Ford's letter?

That people at Trump rallies would shout "Lock her up! Lock her up!" about both Ford and Feinstein.
  #43  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:25 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I think Ford was just used as a political pawn.
And you base this on what, exactly? Your gut feeling?

JFTR, the "I think" part of your post is wrong, if that's the case. Please don't confuse thought with feeling.
  #44  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:30 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I think Ford was just used as a political pawn. Do we really think Feinstein truly cared about her inner feelings? Wasnt she more after the larger political picture?
I don't expect politicians to be above "the larger political picture", but you offer a false dichotomy and I accept that Feinstein tempered her political bias to a large extent and did care about Ford's wishes and feelings. I have not seen Feinstein to be the kind of callous politician who would steamroll over someone like Ford purely for political gain.
  #45  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:32 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Feel free to turn that into an argument. I'm not seeing a really strong connection between the content of the link, and the words you use to describe it.
  #46  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:43 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Okay, so why didn't Feinstein talk to her?
She did. Do you really not know this?
  #47  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:27 AM
Kearsen Kearsen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Funny how conservatives believe Kavanaugh when he says he never blacked out despite liking beer liking beer liking beer liking beer liking beer (did I mention liking beer?) but won't believe a journalist when they say that they got something from a different source.

Funny like how?

I like beer, never blacked out. I would assume a whole host of folks whom like beer have never blacked out, right?
__________________
Kearsen
aka...RollingRock
  #48  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:29 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
There are very few news sources who I will accept at face value, without checking it against other sources where possible, and without taking their possible motives into consideration. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
That's not what you said. You said you didn't find them to be a credible source in this instance. Sounds like cherry picking to me.

I never offered an opinion one way or the other as to whether I find the Intercept credible. I pointed out that they had affirmatively denied Feinstein or her staff were the source of the leak. Since all we have is their word, along with the word of Feinstein and her staff members, that's the actual evidence available now. Against what, exactly? Your feels that Feinstein, her staff and the Intercept are all lying? Because Great Leader told you so? And you're lecturing me on credibility?

Face it. You and others such as Urbanredneck like this meme because it suits the conclusion you want to draw. You want to believe that Dr. Blasey Ford was a helpless victim, shamelessly used by "the Demoncrats" for their own vile ends, and she was too stupid to even realize it.

It's the same horrific notion as that Dr. Ford mistook Kavanaugh for her attacker. What complete unfounded rot. As someone who has been in her situation, I found her testimony entirely credible. You may forget the actual date. You may not remember the actual location. But you sure as hell remember the person who attacked you if you knew them at all before hand.

FFS, use your heads: If you knew someone casually, saw them regularly around at parties, used to date one of their friends... and then that guy, along with his favorite sidekick whom you also know, shoves you into a bedroom, holds you captive and you can watch his face in a mirror as he tries to ass rape you, do you honestly believe you would forget who was visiting this atrocious behavior upon your person? Really?

If you can talk yourself into believing garbage like this, you can talk yourself into believing any stupid sucker story you're told. Including the one that, against no evidence whatsoever, accuses Senator Diane Feinstein of using Dr. Blasey Ford for her own selfish ends.

The only reason this "debate" even exists is so someone can push a false meme based on cobwebs and what certain men want to believe. I'm sick to death of this oft-used, totally dishonest Trumpian tactic.
  #49  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:30 AM
Kearsen Kearsen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And you base this on what, exactly? Your gut feeling?

JFTR, the "I think" part of your post is wrong, if that's the case. Please don't confuse thought with feeling.

Let's ask the reverse question yeah?

Too many of YOU folks right here on this very board want so desperately to BELIEVE that ANY evidence to the contrary (or in this case NO Evidence in support) is thrown completely out the window .

Simply because it aligned with your political compass.

Shocked i am!!
__________________
Kearsen
aka...RollingRock
  #50  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:53 AM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,774
Has Dr. Ford compained about the 'leak' or asked that it be investigated?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017