Changing one’s story (the quotes around “clarifying” were intended to illustrate sarcasm) generally harm’s one’s credibility on a matter. This is true for Ford and would be true for Trump’s lawyer (although I’m not sure of the specifics of what you’re referring to here) too.
If actual bad things are reasonably proven, I suspect he could get 67 votes to impeach. I suspect the subject in question would resign before that happened too.
I hesitate to ask but does anyone on Ford’s side here want to justify additional demands on the Committee?
-
Monday won’t work. Why don’t you just clear your schedule?
-
Fair? That’s a loaded term that, forgive my skepticism, means that if Grassley agrees to testimony on comfy pillows that she will demand double extra comfy pillows.
-
Safety? Again a loaded term. I’m sure that the Senate has security people that will be able to protect her. I’m sure also that won’t be enough. She will need extra super security.
The GOP again, should not play this stupid game. She can come Monday, public or private, or never, and the Senate makes the rules, not her.
No doubt.
What if there was an FBI and/or Senate Judiciary Committee investigation and they put Mark Judge under oath and asked him if he remembered a party he attended with Kavanaugh during Ford’s admittedly wide time frame, and if so, asked him questions about it?
I’d guess she needs time to prepare. If she were my client, I would want a week (4 hours in morning, 4 hours in afternoon) to prepare her…and I’d be totally freaked out that I did not have enough time to prepare her (36 years to go over).
I’d be telling Grassley if you don’t give me more time to prepare then I’m scheduling an interview with say, Chris Wallace, to air the day before the vote (Sunday). I’m working with Wallace to schedule that as I negotiate with Grassley.
If I’m Grassley, this goes down Monday come hell or high water.
Someone will blink. She’s testifying Monday or Grassley will delay.
Are you really not familiar with the multiple hugely embarrassing walk-backs Giuliani has had to do? Earlier in the thread you picked up some obscure Tweeter making unfounded “claims” (that’s scarcasm: I mean lies) that Ford had made a sexual assault claim against Gorsuch, but missed out on Giuliani repeatedly making a fool of himself on national media? Strange.
I did notice, by the way, that you implied that Ford’s lawyer “changing” her story would reflect badly on Ford, but Trump’s lawyer changing his story would reflect badly on Trump’s lawyer. I thought that was funny, and very clearly answers my question of whether partisanship was driving your opinion.
If she gets too hard core about it, she can simply be subpoenaed for Monday. I think the argument that she needs time to prepare is ludicrous. She has had 36 years. She should have started preparing in July or at least on Sunday.
She asked to be heard and now she has a chance to be heard. Not to be heard on her own terms.
I guess that depends on whether you want to get to the truth of whether Kavanaugh committed felony sexual assault or not. I can see how rushing the testimony would avoid getting to the truth, which seems to be a very strong implication that the Republicans don’t want the truth to get out. Which implies that Kavanaugh is in fact a rapist.
Again with the “rushing” talking point. She has had 36 years to prepare. She has not been rushed.
Let me explain this again.
There has been quite a call for an FBI investigation. The FBI conducts investigations of alleged crimes when they have jurisdiction. The FBI does not have jurisdiction to investigate Ford’s allegations. Ford does allege criminal acts and the state/local authorities have jurisdiction over that.
If instead what people want is a seventh FBI background check then ask for that. And the Executive would have to request the FBI perform that check.
A background check ≠ investigation.
If Ford wants to comment on Kavanaugh’s fitness to serve as a Supreme Court justice then the platform to do so is being offered to her. She needs to deal with the Senate Judiciary Committee.
When words have specific legal meanings I try to be careful about the proper use. Yes, I was the guy answering many calls where someone reported “I’ve been robbed!”. And after saying something like, “Tell me what happened in your own words” I would tell the person who only got 5 chicken nuggets when they ordered 6 that they were not robbed as far as the law was concerned. Nor was the person reporting their home was burglarized. Nor was the person who paid the mechanic $300 to fix that squeal and the squeal continued. And so forth.
I think you mean Kavanaugh committed felonious sexual assault on her 36 years ago. She has been preparing for a Congressional inquisition for less than 2 days.
That’s a reasonable argument.
I’m going off the assumption that Professor Ford did not know testifying in front of the Senate was going to be a possibility until a few days ago. If that’s true, you need to teach someone how to testify in front of the Senate with questions being asked by lawyers/politicians (not neutrals after the truth) - all of this is being negotiated right now and Ford’s lawyers would want it to be something that puts Ford in the best position to deliver the truth in a way that looks the best for her.
That’s also not unreasonable to negotiate for that.
Yeah, IIRC Franken was brought up in the post you were responding to in response to someone else’s post about Ellison or Booker.
Got a problem with whataboutism? Tell that to HD and Shodan and all the rest of that lot.
This is a lot of words to make a simple and wrong argument. Your claim is (now) that Ford or the Senate wants a criminal investigation. That claim is false. Just read the letter from the Senate Democrats if you want to confirm.
Let ME explain this again. The FBI will investigate such allegations if instructed to do so by the President. That’s what happened with Anita Hill. And it could happen here and now, if the GOP hadn’t decided to march in lockstep opposition to the idea.
And her last few days have probably been pretty busy, what with her trying to keep herself alive in the face of multiple right-wing death threats. With so many deranged and dangerous right wing extremists looking to murder her, she’s probably had other issues to worry about than prepping to be grilled by her attacker’s buddies.
Let’s see: July, when she specifically said she didn’t want her claims to become public? Jeez, why didn’t she start preparing then?
Or Sunday, when she admitted to having written the letter, just ahead of being involuntarily outed? Why sure, she shoulda shifted gears into prep mode right away, and kept her nose to the grindstone as her life was turned upside down, as she was doxxed, as she got death threats and had to go into hiding.
Well, the least you could do is offer her a few days inside your patented Protection Force Field to enable her to safely prepare.
I don’t know that Kavanaugh did that. Neither do you. Neither does anyone except for Ford and Kavanaugh. Assuming we only count the time since she made her allegations public, she will have had the same amount of time as Kavanaugh will have had.
If she did not realize that by making these allegations public that she would very likely be asked to testify, she needs a better attorney. She still has three full days to prepare even if she wasted Tuesday, Wednesday, and today. I’m sure that there are groups that will pay for the overtime.
I don’t understand the question? “What if”? Then … I guess that would happen. Are you asking if I think they should, or should not? Or if I think it would reveal the truth of the matter? What’s the question here?
She has a few days. Three days. This “safety” shit is nonsense. Any public figure has cranks out there running their mouths and making threats. She has half of the country behind her and there is not even a good picture of her. Her lawyer could make one phone call and have a team of security at a nice hotel anywhere in the country.
This is political nonsense.