I have no problem rejecting a call to investigate an alleged crime where:
I suspect those were the reasons Feinstein did not think it should be investigated either. I’m happy to agree with her.
I know YDGAF, and I’d bet that Feinstein DGAF either. This is political theater. This is using her position as Senator to set up a situation where guys with R after their name are going to vote for the ‘maybe rapist’ to be Supreme Court Justice.
They get to vote yes and HOPE that it doesn’t turn into a Bill Cosby situation where they’re stuck with the stink of it because they couldn’t be bothered to wait a little. They waited a LOT when it was Garland’s nomination, they can’t wait a few weeks now?
What will your opinion be if you have just one of those things? Because if the alleged victim comes forward that’s where you’ll be.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if she comes forward. I’ve read that Ronan Farrow flew to CA to convince her to go public.
They could do lots of things. It doesn’t sound like they are going to wait because of this nothingburger.
I think the 35 years is a big impediment. I would have to see how serious and credible the allegations were if the woman decided to come forward. If there were no other witnesses, I’d be OK with no investigation. If there were other witnesses, again, I’d have to see the details. But I’d also like to see what other LEO would say about investigating something like this and how possible it is to do it.
If they’re comfortable it’s a nothingburger 24 hours after finding out about it, they should vote. If there’s meat on that bone, it could get ugly.
Sort of the other way around. Feinstein waited 2 weeks (actually 6) to see if anything was going to stick, and finally resorted to second-hand allegations because she didn’t have anything better. A 35 year old crime can’t be investigated thoroughly, so all it is good for is to throw something out there and see if it sticks, because it can’t be disproven.
The letter writer, or the woman about whom the letter was supposedly written?
Regards,
Shodan
The latter. I think a lot of skilled convincers are going to do their best to convince her to come forward. May work and may not, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it did.
It is absolutely clear from reading the thread that the antecedent to the pronoun “she” in that post is “alleged victim”.
So much for Feinstein’s alleged respect for the wishes of the victim.
Regards,
Shodan
I hope she doesn’t mind being unmasked, because she isn’t going to be anonymous for long.
“Who among us does not have a ready-made list of 65 women to say you did not rape them in high school” - Kate Aronoff, contributing writer The Intercept
Did you come to this thread thinking that you’d find a bunch of people defending Feinstein? Are you disappointed to find that no one really thinks she handled this well? I think she handled it pretty poorly, though her extremely vague statement didn’t give any indication that she did anything contrary to the wishes of the accuser.
They’ve already scheduled the vote for the 20th.
“Ready, Fire, Aim, then Investigate!”
Something else to keep in mind… There’s a second person implicated in the letter, but he has denied this in the strongest possible terms.
Now that I think about it, those terms could have been a wee bit stronger.
Kavanaugh has been investigated repeatedly and thoroughly. I don’t think these third-hand rumors merit delaying the vote any longer (than it has already been delayed).
It hardly matters whether it is a “nothingburger” or not, save to assuage what little conscience remains. There are other issues about his testimony, other questions that the committee, in its wisdom, has decided not to investigate further. And nobody can make them.
Take Leahy’s complaint about stolen information. He has evidence, so what? He could have an affidavit from God Almighty countersigned by Gabriel, and the committee has no obligation to consider it. Not to say the evidence is convincing beyond reasonable doubt, that’s hardly the point. It is evidence that ordinarily would provoke investigation. But that is closed off. In a bit of a hurry, you see.
I take friend CheeseSteak’s point in the sense that if truly damning evidence emerges, then there is nothing to be done about it. Not at the moment, at least.
Cite? (For the ‘thoroughly’ part, that is. I’m willing to grant ‘repeatedly’.)
What’s the hurry? It was OK with Republicans when Scalia’s seat was empty for a year, and when it looked like Hillary would be President now, there was a boomlet of GOP support for not filling any vacancies during her term in office - not just the Scalia vacancy, but any others that might occur as well.
Now of course you pretend that there’s some urgency here. Nah, I don’t think so.