Smart move. The Pubbies are anxious to pretend flexibility while simultaneously trying to shut her up. This only asks for a context for discussion and negotiation. So, Grassley has to find a firm “No!” that sounds like “Yes”. They want to forbid her to speak while simultaneously claiming the opposite.
First of all, no Republican politician of any relevancy to this appointment that I know of is alleging that Ford was paid off or has dishonest motives. Some have attacked Feinstein for her motives and quite frankly I think she is a worthy target.
Second of all, Judge is not up for SCOTUS, Kavanaugh is. If someone wants to go after Judge for underage drinking or anything else, have at it, and good luck with that. I don’t think it will amount to much.
I submit that there is a unequivocal ZERO percent chance of clearing Kavanaugh for something that happened at an unspecified date/time/location in the early 1980s. That is impossible. If time/date/location was specified, that’s an entirely different story, and there might be a non-zero chance, but it hasn’t been specified, and will not be specified, unless Ford specifies it. Which she can do on Monday or right this moment if she is so inclined - no FBI investigation required.
I also will suggest that, even if Ford came out, right now, and said, “You know, what? Nevermind. On second thought I believe I am misremembering the incident. Sorry.”, that I sizable amount of people would assume she only backed down because of outside pressure. That’s what happens when you believe the ends justify the means if you want somebody out of the picture.
Assuming that actually amounts to something, GOOD.
Cite?
I didn’t “forget”, I’ve linked to the original source repeatedly. I tried to extract the relevant portion where any consent that may have existed ended and the sexual assault began in the portion that I quoted in my posts.
I also will suggest that, even if Kavanaugh came out, right now, and said, “You know, what? I did it. I attempted to rape Ms. Ford. And it wasn’t the only time I did it either. Sorry,” that a sizable amount of people would shrug their shoulders and say that regardless he’s a good man and shouldn’t have his spot on the SC taken from him because of youthful indiscretions. That’s what happens when you believe the ends justify the means and you want to stuff the courts with people who believe the backwards shit you believe.
(Incidentally, I will also suggest that, even if a presidential candidate was caught on tape saying “I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy,” that a sizable amount of people would shrug their shoulders and vote for him anyway. That’s what happens when you believe the ends justifies the means, yadda yadda yadda)
While I’ll grant that it’s possible that she is simply shy and not strongly desirous of showing up, it’s also possible that she’s trying to play the Republicans and push for time.
It’s not clear what more she would want beyond a private session and, possibly, security. They already offered the first and I doubt that they’d refuse the latter. Congress, I’m pretty sure, already has its own security force to allocate for such things and I doubt that there’s any reason they couldn’t be available on Monday. It’s not clear what exactly she would want that would take an extra week that isn’t just playing for time.
It’s 10 pm, you turn to your wife and say “I’m going to bed.” She says “Now? But I’d hoped for some sexy time.”
How do you respond:
A. “Too late. You should have told me earlier.”
B. “OK, I guess I can push back my bedtime 30 minutes”
Given that you can seemingly see into the future, why not just tell us all now if she’s going to testify and end the suspense?
Can’t say I’d be happy to see her bail out on this, but its way over my pay grade to demand she take one for the team. By her own account, she is afraid. Some folks can take that in stride, others cannot, it is not mine to judge.
Pals and gals, there’s a big social change brewing here. And it boils down to judging situations where clear evidence doesn’t exist. Believe her or believe him oversimplifies, but we’re gonna have to muddle through to some consensus. But since I have no more experience with sexual aggression than I do with giving birth, I’m inclined to accept her word more than his.
Are there problems with that? Hugh Betcha! But we’ve had dominance in these things for thousands of years, we can probably loosen that. We should, at any rate. Not saying its gonna be easy, saying it should be done. Mothers, sisters, daughters…we are they and they are us. If they can’t turn to us…then, who?
Possibly an agreement that she would not be treated as abominably as Anita Hill was?
Wonder if there’s some sort of investigatory body that could figure out things like the dates things happened? If not, we should form one, and then have them nail down the date.
I’m inclined to give both equal consideration, because i want my daughters and my son to be able to turn to us. I mean, isn’t that what equality is all about? I’m not saying injustices to women haven’t happened. They surely have. But they have happened to men too, and presumption of guilt until proven innocent is a step too far.
Ford doesn’t know, and everyone else she claims was at the party says nothing like that ever happened (at least as far as they know). How do you expect an investigatory body to “figure out” the date, given those parameters?
Gee, I don’t know. Do they have those weird kids from Minority Report?
By investigating. If you think that finding the date and location of a party that lots of people attended is beyond the investigative capability of the FBI, then rest assured the Russia thing won’t be going anywhere.
Which is another reason an interview with Ford, by the investigating body, which is the Senate Judiciary Committee, not the FBI, should occur first. If Ford and/or Kavanaugh make statements which suggest a path for further investigations, by the joint staffs of the committee, and they could request the executive lend resources like the FBI if they agreed it was necessary, but probably only if Ford has something new and more specific to say than what’s come out so far.
Oh, but it’s hopelessly politicized because of the Republicans (as if the Democrats haven’t also acted brazenly politically in this episode)? It’s a political decision. Every reasonable person must agree or nearly so with your first statement. There’s no realistic chance this accusation will be proved or disproved to any relevant legal standard criminal (Kavanaugh did it) or civil (as applied to K, or assuming that’s the most Ford would be subject to if her statements are deliberately false or in reckless disregard of the truth) based on what is now known. It’s a political judgement if K should still be seated given this allegation. And it’s in the hand of a political body. That’s the least worst way for it to work on 36 yr old allegations based on fragmentary recollection (don’t know exactly when or where etc). It’s not to further politicize law enforcement agencies asking them to decide who to believe.
So for the purposes of your comparison, you wish to alter the narrative to make one scenario seem worse than it is. Got it.
Regarding others at the party saying nothing happened, do you think Mark Judge for instance is more or less likely to tell the truth when put under oath than when writing an unsolicited letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee? Because if it’s more likely, then I would suggest an FBI/and or committee investigation makes sense.
If I understand Ford’s claim correctly, it’s a party that 5 people are alleged to have attended: 4 of them don’t remember where / when it was (or if it even happened) and we don’t know who the fifth person is. It’s unclear if anyone does.