Unlike with a trial, nobody is waiting for this and needs it rushed. We can do without another justice on the court, and in fact can go for a year or even more that way. So any assertion from a so called “judge” in this matter about “delays” is tainted by the rush to judgement that the whole proceeding represents.
So the “judge” in this case should demonstrate the exigency, the reason he needs to make deadlines, or else he fails to be a judge in this matter, but is just a partisan fixer.
I’ve got CNN on, and no “breaking news” yet. Two minutes to go.
“If we don’t get this insane clown presidents nominee of a teenage blackout drunk on the court right now then it may be too late. We may not get another pick at all. We burned the party to the ground to get this one little thing, and no female is going to get in the way. Of course this is a national emergency!”
Why do we have to take the chance? There’s no other option, here, nobody with such sterling reputation? We must be certain beyond a reasonable doubt, and if not that, well, we just roll the dice, see what happens?
Kavanaugh is a tactical missile from the extreme right, his loyalty is his one salient characteristic, it is the driving force behind his upward climb. Is anyone here proud to see his work as one of Kenneth Starr’s minions? Anyone want to say that outside of his work as a Republican operative, he would have shot straight up the greasy pole anyway? Because he is a star in the legal sky? Why isn’t doubt a good and sufficient reason?
(Typed “minion” and autocorrect tried to make it “minyan”. Wake up, America!)
The “judge” in this case is the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee which has decided to set certain deadlines for approving or rejecting this nominee. The timeframe is consistent with past nominees.
You could say the same thing about any criminal or civil trial. It doesn’t NEED to be tomorrow, so if I call up the judge at 6:00a.m. on the day of the jury trial that has been continued twice already and tell him I want more time just because, then there is no real NEED to have the trial on that day, right? Should the judge just keep indulging me on the grounds that next week is as good as this week or that next year is as good as this year?
The procedure must be upheld to be respected. When a witness or a party was aware of the scheduling of the matter and nonetheless only came forward five days prior to a vote (or to keep the analogy a trial) then it would be reasonable for the judge to say no. It would also be reasonable, as Grassley did, to say one week.
In this situation, nor in any other, does the witness or party simply get to demand how the schedule is constructed.
Further, she wrote this letter to Feinstein in July and yet asked to remain anonymous. It is unclear what she expected to happen with this letter. Did she just want it filed and no action taken? That’s unlikely; why write it in that event?
Did she think that her anonymous accusation would simply cause the nomination to fail? The Republicans will just give up based upon a 36 year old uncorroborated story? That is hopelessly naive and cannot be credited to a 51 year old educated professor who has a doctorate degree.
The only reasonable explanation is that she had to know that she would come front and center to this story and should have been reasonably prepared.
By the way, “greasy pole” above in no way to refers to Trump’s Circus Peanut. It’s, like, Disraeli. English guy.
Breaking News: Ford accepts the offer. But it’s confusing because CNN is saying her team is still negotiating the details. I assume they mean she agrees to Wednesday.
Cite?
Reporters have very different motivations than professional objective investigators. So no, this is not being investigated “more than any other such allegation…”. Not even close. That would require the FBI and probably local authorities to conduct a full investigation.
As for my own reaction to allegations of sexual assault – I trust that, in general, accusers of sexual assault are truthful and honest. But that’s just in general. What that means in practice is that if a single allegation is credible (as Ford’s is), it should be fully investigated – I certainly wouldn’t advocate impeaching Kavanaugh from his present position without a full investigation by an objective third party. If there are multiple credible allegations showing a similar pattern (like those against Al Franken), then that’s enough for me to believe that a politician or other high official ought to step down. There’s still a possibility that it’s a massive conspiracy – and if so, the individual is free to investigate and clear their name; if there’s a criminal trial, they’ll have the same opportunity.
So that’s what we have here – a single credible allegation against Kavanaugh. It’s reasonable to ask that it be fully investigated, no matter that it was discovered late in the confirmation process, and even if that timing was selected by the opposing party for political purposes. Politicians are going to play politics. But when it comes to credible allegations of sexual assault, they must absolutely be investigated, no matter what.
Ford’s testimony is evidence. So is Judge’s, and Kavanaugh’s. And any other witnesses identified by Ford. As could be lots of other evidence – travel records, photographs, and much more, potentially. No matter what the Democrats did, this is still a credible allegation, and any and all credible allegations of sexual assault must be investigated. And it’s always – always – reasonable and appropriate to ask for credible allegations to be fully investigated. And never reasonable or appropriate to refuse that request for credible allegations.
Seriously?! You agreed earlier that details of the story were, in fact, corroborated.
The justice system has it’s own exigencies that are not relevant here at all. Of course we recognize that trials have to go forward for all concerned, as a general principle. But that principle doesn’t make sense transposed into this process.
All the things your saying are based on “norms” you are trying to bring back in to the process, but this is only after you have debased the norms you don’t want to respect, around nominees of other presidents. We are post norms now, in this thread especially. You got to move on and figure out where you are in this new world. She had the constitutional right to do whatever she did. She can’t be interpreted until she has explained what she did. She is under conditions where she certainly can reasonably ask for more time. It is reasonable to assume she was making judgements in real time that were more nuanced than the arguments about her by internet denizens. In any case you need to hear her explain it.
You can’t take a year to humilaite Merrick Garland and Barrack Obama, and then turn around and claim the process can’t accomodate other peoples needs, than yourself and your voting bloc.
CNBC reports that she agrees to testify with “details yet to be worked out.”
That’s not an acceptance. The GOP needs to quit allowing these games. 12 more hours for a full acceptance or we vote Monday.
The politics is almost completely a side discussion compared to what to do about a credible allegation of sexual assault. The Republicans did everything they could to avoid considering Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland (and of course that history goes back decades, getting progressively worse and worse up to the abominable way Garland was treated). It should be no surprise that the Democrats will do everything they can to delay or prevent Trump’s latest nominee.
But that’s not what this is about – it’s about a credible allegation of sexual assault. Okay, the Democrats are going to try and use this credible allegation politically, but so what? It still needs to be investigated. Not just for Ford’s sake, but for Kavanaugh’s, if he’s innocent. And for the country, to make sure someone widely suspected to be an attempted rapist isn’t seated on the SCOTUS without a full investigation. All of those are entirely reasonable justifications for wanting an investigation. And “Feinstein delayed reporting this!” or similar bullshit is absolutely not a reasonable justification for refusing one. “Feinstein delayed reporting this” or whatever is an appropriate justification for criticizing Democrats in the Senate. Do so to your heart’s content. That’s absolutely fine with me. But the credible allegation is still there, and still credible, and must absolutely be investigated.
You keep using that word…
It is not a credible allegation under any reasonable definition. The accuser has no idea of some basic facts, like time and location, and has an unexplained delay of several decades.
Compare this with say the Jimmy Saville case or the Harvey Weinstein saga where even for decades-old allegation, there were recorded contemperous complaints, exchanges of communications, whose transcripts were available, third parties corroborating pretty much all of the claims.
And, no. EVery tribunal in the world has the right nay duty to decide on the most optimum use of its time and efforts. There is no case in the world which could not have been investigated more, but at a certain point it has to stop. And fishing expeditions like you propose are rarely if ever accepted.
If you are going to quote me, I would ask that you not take snippets out of context. You failed to answer my previous posts except by starting a Pit thread.
Yes, she lived in the same county as Kavanaugh. Yes, she is a human being, a female, named Christine Blasey Ford. Those are not corroboration of her allegation of a sexual assault.
Of course it’s credible. The accuser has no apparent reason to lie. Her life is being strongly negatively impacted. She told others years before making this allegation. And the delay is irrelevant – most sexual assaults and rapes from acquaintances/friends (i.e. “date rape” and similar pheonomena) from the 80s weren’t reported. Because society treated accusers at the time like utter shit if they accused someone of raping or assaulting them except for quite narrow circumstances (i.e. nearly every rape aside from “stranger jumps out of the bushes with a knife”). It tells us absolutely nothing that a terrified and traumatized teenager wouldn’t report an assault, since she would likely be treated terribly had she done so.
There hasn’t been an investigation yet. We didn’t know all that much about Saville or Weinstein after the first accusation – it took weeks and months for additional accusers to come forward, for investigations to be conducted, etc, for us to know as much as we do now. Not a week after the first accuser comes forward.
It’s been literally six days since Ford came forward. It took many, many weeks and months for us to learn the extent of Bill Cosby’s and Weinstein’s crimes. The idea that six days is enough time to conclude that no investigation is necessary is absolutely ludicrous.
So, asking a panel of some kind for a couple days worth of delay is not necessarily the work of a complete lunatic?
Listening to a particular West Virginia lawyer in this thread, only a madman could possibly concoct such an outrageous and insulting request.
You tried to make the case that the corroborated details were not substantive, but I addressed that.
You tried to make the case that under an alternative definition of corroborated the details were not corroborated, but I addressed that as well.
What posts have I failed to address?
Are you now denying that details of her story have been corroborated?