I’m not sure what you expected Democrats to do then or now? Way back at the OP of this very thread - and if that was too far back, it’s still the subject - the question was asked if Democrats could actually stop the nomination. The answer then was a resounding no.
And really, that hasn’t changed. After the FBI wraps up their investigation - one which depending on who you ask is being limited by the Trump administration - there is nothing stopping every Republican including Collins and Flake from delivering a “Yes” vote and there is fuck-all Democrats can do.
Conversely, there wasn’t much they could do about Garland either. What did you think they could do? Please tell the class.
The thing is that elections have consequences and the Senate has rules. Being in the minority party means you have very little power to do anything. Republicans never have to consider what Democrats want and in fact when they do it’s usually limited to how to best “stick it to the libs.”
The time to fight for Garland’s nomination happened in the 2014 midterms. That ship sailed. It also could have been fought in the 2016 election as a win by Hillary Clinton and taking back the Senate would have changed things. That didn’t happen either.
As far as I can see Democrats did everything in their power to get Garland voted on and to delay the vote of Kavanaugh. They just didn’t (and don’t) have enough of the power.
If Kavanaugh does not get confirmed, it will be because Democrats dragged the confirmation process to where they had to listen to Ford and they managed to convince Flake to do literally the least he could do by not killing it but demanding an investigation. Hell, Feinstein has been pilloried even by other liberals and Republicans still feel she was involved in dirty tricks.
Criticizing Democrats for Garland and Kavanaugh lacks an understanding of the process or their ability to influence it.
This is amazing. If this was happening on a TV show, I would find it way too unrealistic.
I really don’t know what the WH’s game plan is. The obvious explanation is that they just no longer give a fuck about anything but confirming Kavanaugh. But I’d like to think that appearances matter even to them. If not, then we truly are living under a fascist government.
This story was linked earlier, but somehow I missed this…
July! Is there any innocent explanation for that?
This also reminds me of how quickly the letter from the 65 women was put together. It really did seem at the time that they were ready for something from high school involving women to surface and had done some ground work in preparation. I think that needs to be revisited.
Typically we don’t take action to prohibit various sources - they can be refuted on the merits. 4chan IMO is particularly odious, but the same rationale would apply to them as any other questionable source.
But given the apparent hijack as a result, I’m going to instruct folks to drop the 4chan hijack and the fruits of that tree.
Without seeing the actual text messages, it’s hard to say. I’m having a difficult time thinking of a charitable reason for NBC to keep them secret, but anyways, “and/or” and “may have” seriously undercut the narrative here.
ETA: That story seems long on innuendo and short on facts.
How does one not even confirm that a corroborating witness is ALIVE, let alone that they can actually corroborate the story, before giving the name to the media? Half-assed effort Avenatti, half-assed.
I think the NBC piece is Kerry Bercham (big shot lawyer) signaling to the FBI that she’s getting frustrated with getting stonewalled by them and will go public with the information if they don’t talk to her.
NBC doesn’t have the texts so NBC is not keeping the texts secret. Bercham probably summarized the texts for NBC and let someone read a few to show that she wasn’t full of shit.
The very first paragraph says, “… according to text messages obtained by NBC News.”
That’s a weird way to open a story if they have not, in fact, obtained the text messages, don’t you think?
BTW, do I ever get to hear what the other calendar “entries” were detailing non-weekend drinking?
Do we ever get your summary of the lots of information that indicates that Dr. Ford lied under oath? As I recall you were working on a longer post. Maybe you could start a thread about it.
There’s still something about the way that story was written that makes me think NBC lacks full permission to use the texts in any way they see fit. Perhaps something to do with the other people on the sending or receiving end of these texts.
None of that undercuts my broader point. Bercham is letting the FBI know that they’re going to read these texts one way or the other. Either in private or in public.
That officer’s handwriting is tough to make out. Someone is alleging that Kavanaugh threw ice at him during a heated argument in 1985. Did I get that right?
Not entirely clear exactly what they are alleging. From what the news said he has said two separate things, one when he heard the specific allegation and the second general information that Ramirez was consulting people. The second he did hear sometime before, as he has said. If the texts detail the second, then they aren’t nearly as earth-shattering as suggested. Text of his interview.
The denial is at pg 18 (line 8-14). The second one is pg 20 (line 12-22).
From a Palo Alto newspaper. They report on the building permits and verify that the door was installed well before her 2012 marriage therapy. Read the comments as well.
“Ford later told Sen. Dianne Feinstein during her questioning that she wanted the second front door because of her anxiety, PTSD and claustrophobia resulting from the 1982 assault.”