False, she wrote to Feinstein in July. July. Then Professor Ford took a polygraph test in early August, on the advice of a lawyer. This isn’t the last minute. The FBI can investigate the allegations - as they should regardless. There is no rush.
America deserves America’s best judicial talent on the highest court of the land. Patriots cheer for serious deliberation on serious decisions.
I agree, but this depends on her being willing to talk to the FBI. If she’s not, then there’s just no further reason to hold this up.
…Is that unusual in cases of sexual assault?
What is it, in particular, that you don’t find credible in this statement? If questioned could you tell us who owned the house of every party you went to 30 years ago?
It was my birthday a couple of days ago. I had to ask my mum “am I 44 or 45?” She didn’t know the answer. I had to use my fingers to figure it out. I have plenty of vivid memories of traumatic things that happened to me in my lifetime and I don’t have the foggiest how old I was when they happened.
And I’ve just tried to out how old I was for one particular incident: and I just can’t do it. It was either 1996 or 97. I think, I’m not quite sure.
So if I’m having trouble nailing down how old I was when something traumatic happened to me, it doesn’t surprise me at all that somebody else would have the same issue.
Does it strike you as credible that she would invent the details of the assault but fail to invent a method of getting home? If she had said “I walked home and nobody saw me” would that make her statement more credible in your eyes? What is the material difference between the two statements?
I’m not suggesting you believe her. But you asked iiandyiiii "what makes you call them “credible”? And the answer is that there is nothing in Christine Blasey Ford’s background that would suggest she would make something like this up, that the things you are quibbling are literally quibbles, they aren’t really unreasonable and don’t dent her credibility.
To me what makes it credible is that she named a second person, which is really going out on a limb if you’re lying. She also told her therapist about it years ago.
I heard the same thing, and I think it was either from PBS or from their Washington reporter on another show.
Heard on CNN that Grassley is trying to arrange a telephone interview with Ford on Monday. On the one hand, I wouldn’t blame her for not wanting to go further than she has, but on the other hand, if you’re going to accuse someone like this of sexual assault, you should be prepared to back up the claim publicly if you want folks to act on your accusation.
And now the crazies are threatening her, personally. Ugh. Any chance Trump is going to ask his supporters to lay off? (That was a rhetorical question, of course.)
Oh, and yeah, what gives her added credibility is having told her therapist about this 6 years ago. If she was just making shit up, that would not have happened.
Republicans have to either go all in and fully stand behind him or quickly abandon him to try to ram through someone else.
Politically, you’re right. Morally, they should all be Jeff Flake.
I was assuming that train had sailed already.
Of course it has. They are politicians doing what politicians do: considering politics. Corker and Flake aren’t running for reelection. If they were, they’d probably just vote like any other Republicans.
Dr Paingloss, and the worst of all possible worlds. Kavanaugh has a problem with the wimmens, because they see him as an anti-choice partisan, and these hearings have offered no comfort. Add to that the stink of sexual predator that will waft over these hearings. Also, he fibs.
(If she testifies, got a nickel says some Republican frames a question like how provocatively was she dressed?)
Gonna get ugly. Have to take cold comfort that it falls upon the richly deserving.
Does anyone have any doubt that the GOP would attempt to ram through this or any other nominee in a lame duck session in which they had already lost the senate despite all their proclamations about the will of the voters?
Now that she’s come forward, I think they should delay to determine first if there is any way to validate her claims. If there is, they should do so. If there isn’t, they should acknowledge that and hold the vote.
Only after it was up for *several *hours despite many, *many *take down requests.
I feel like we’re seeing one important point that shouldn’t pass by in the discussion of rape cases.
John Mace said it was a hole in her story that she remembered only having one beer that night.
HurricaneDitka questioned the story because she “didn’t remember key details”.
These objections are both making gross assumptions about what someone would remember about trauma. Except they’re making them in the opposite directions. Neither, to my knowledge, is based on any actual scientific investigation of what people actually remember from trauma, but rather on the intuitions of two men who have never been the victim of sexual assault.
I feel like this should be highlighted, because it’s just a little fucked up. You just can’t win as a victim of sexual assault. This is why one of the mantras of the #metoo movement is “we believe you”.
Yeah, I’m not really convinced of that yet. Let’s see when their values are actually tested, like when a Democratic candidate for President is accused in September 2020.
Um… Al Franken?
While it hurt to lose Franken, it’s a blue state and he was eminently expendable.
One whose high school yearbook quote was “some women need to be beaten frequently like a gong.”
Is it in Republicans’ best interest to confirm him quickly at this point? The man is not popular. No persuadable voter is going to rush to the polls to thank their Republican senator for voting for him. So, why confirm him a month before the midterm and risk having other shoes drop in between? One of the reasons the Mark Foley scandal was so bad, in addition to the timing, was the feeling that a bunch of people had been warned but had done nothing about it. Now, if something else comes out, Republican senators have been warned about Brett Kavanaugh but are setting themselves up to do nothing about it. Why risk it when they’ll have another two months of consequence-free voting after the election? I get that he’ll be a reliable vote on the court, but he’ll still be one if he misses the first month of his first term.
They might also think that do than and if we lose the election and not get a chance for years. Over allegations which are at this moment extremely thin (and that’s being generous)? And no one shouting against Kavanaugh on this issue supports confirming him anyway.