I believe the proper legal term is ex rockeri fornicatum.
But I’ll correct my earlier post about Ford testifying. It’s not just Fox that is reporting that she hasn’t accepted the offer extended to her by Grassley to testify on Monday. Other news sources are reporting the same now. My info was out of date on this fast-changing story. I don’t know if she is still working out a negotiating position with her lawyer, or what is going on.
When you made the false claim that:
we spent way too much time trying to dissuade you of that inaccurate belief. I agree, it should not have taken as long as it did. Saying “drag dog was wrong to call McConnell’s actions ‘unconstitional’” is not nearly the same thing as saying “we should chuck every norm out the window”.
BTW, I don’t want to dwell on the matter, but wanted to let you know that this correction was noticed and appreciated.
The Democrats also want to avoid red state Senate candidates having to vote on K pre election if he can’t be defeated outright. I believe all reasonable people have to agree on that, even if they disagree on the relative importance of process issues like that v the allegation itself. Point is, the news articles (yes well beyond Fox) saying Ford is not on board yet for a hearing next week is also in the context of Democrats saying it has be part of a ‘thorough process’ (ie. long, ie where ideally Manchin et al don’t have to vote on K before the election) and I think it would be naive to think that doesn’t feed back to the advice Ford is getting or perhaps her own thinking. The politics can’t be separated out. A holier than thou pose by disembodied voices on the internet if they claim it doesn’t matter to them, just the truth, doesn’t make it separable in the real world.
And now a Judicial Crisis Network (right-wing outfit that promotes and advocates for the GOP judicial nominees) spokesperson raises the question of whether the incident was really attempted rape, or whether it was just “rough horseplay.”
Guess it must’ve happened, then, otherwise it would be neither one, right? 
You think a Judicial Crisis Network spokesperson has perfect, factual knowledge of this? Most of the rest of us acknowledge that there’s some doubt at play here.
You must’ve missed the ;).
Fair enough.
You have spent the whole time here chucking up and chucking out every norm, in turn, that any democratic poster, or voter, values, seemingly with a strong correlation. It has very little to do with me or my posts.
Of course it will. I’ve been told that conservatives are all about law and order and have exceptional respect for crime victims. Josh Marshall, today: [INDENT] Kavanaugh spokesperson/activist says it’s not clear that the incident was attempted rape as opposed to just “rough horseplay”.
2/ For context, the Judicial Crisis Network is the central campaign arm behind all GOP judicial confirmation hearings. They’re the ones who run the ads. https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1042074734807146502 [/INDENT]
“Rough horseplay.” Holey crap. So according to this interpretation it was 2 football players ganging up on a girl 2 years younger in a room alone with her. While they were drunk. Unbelievable.
Yes, and I thought my quote was interesting because I was familiar with conservative thought patterns, ones not expressed previously in this thread.
Hoo boy. I’ve been calling for an FBI investigation because they are pros at this. Serious inquiry should preceed committee hearings; that’s what happens in ordinary courts of law for example.
Congressfolk never (to my knowledge) ceed questioning to their staff or to former prosecutors. Because they like preening for the camera. That’s fine, but it’s decidedly non-optimal from a policy perspective.
Thank you.
And can’t forget that she was just on her way to the bathroom in the first place, when they grabbed her and dragged her into that room.
Rough and extremely nonconsensual, extremely scary horseplay.
That doesn’t address the question. If Feinstein thought investigation was important, why didn’t she pursue it during the hearings? If Feinstein wanted to respect the wishes of the accuser, why did she announce it publicly so it could be leaked, and ask for an investigation?
I for one am not taking her protestations at all seriously. As explained above, it is not possible to believe either that she wanted an investigation (since she did not attempt to raise the issue during the hearings when she could have) nor that she wanted to respect the wishes of the accuser (since she announced it publicly, after the hearings were over, so that her identity could be leaked and since Feinstein then called for an investigation that she had spent six weeks not bringing about).
It is very much part of whether and how investigations should be handled. Feinstein is using this for political advantage, and for no other reason. You are blaming the GOP for Feinstein’s hypocrisy.
How should it have been handled? If there are credible accusations, you bring them up during the hearing. You do not sit on them for six weeks, not doing your job of investigating via hearings, and then after the hearings are done, make the accusations public so that they can be leaked and then call for investigations.
You do your fucking job, IOW. And hope nobody asks “why the hell did you sit on this until after the last minute?” Because the obvious answer is one you can’t admit - you couldn’t beat Kavanaugh by fair means, so the hell with ethics and the hell with doing your job and the hell with what the accuser wanted. All that counts is posturing in front of the camera, and hope for the best in the mid-terms.
Regards,
Shodan
Whatever. I think Feinstein sucks and I couldn’t care less about defending her. What’s far, far more important is actually investigating these credible allegations of attempted rape, and not try and ignore or silence the accuser.
Huh? Cite, please. No idea what the hell you’re trying to dispute in anything I’ve said. All I’ve done is advocate that this allegation be investigated thoroughly, and not ignored.
No idea what you think this is disputing in anything I’ve posted. All I’ve done is advocate that this allegation be investigated thoroughly prior to any vote on Kavanaugh and not ignored. And thankfully, it appears the Senate is not going to ignore this accuser, much as many Republicans in the Senate (and some of their supporters in this thread) would like to.
**Shodan **, as far as I can tell, she sat on it, since she judged it not to be well useful. It was her staff who leaked news of it all over the Hill and then to the press. Then she sent it to the FBI and WH and tried to keep anonymous. Then the accuser had to come forward since it was likely she would have been exposed shortly.
As far as I can tell Feinstein did not want it to come out and would rather the issue die.
Are they? It would not surprise me if they declined due to the decades that have passed since the incident occurred. I would not assume they are experts at doing things that they would normally not do-- investigate alleged crimes long past the statute of limitations. I could be wrong, but do you know they are pros at that?
Just to be clear, I would be happy to have them do an investigation assuming they think they can do it.
The FBI is avoiding it is since they are in fact pros and know that it’s an allegation with little chance of coming to an answer.
FTR, no I don’t know they are pros at that. I just read the newspapers, IANAL.
But the FBI does background investigations as well. That involves compiling all manner of soft information from sources who are cooperative, uncooperative, and many places in between. I stand by my claim, accept your reasonable doubts, and welcome commentary from those more informed than myself.
ETA: No snark intended. Seriously.
And yet, now that she has been offered the opportunity, her lawyers are ducking emails:
You are attempting a distinction without a difference. Feinstein did not investigate the allegations, and did ignore them. Do you understand that?
You cannot credibly claim that investigating the allegations is important and also that the delay was the fault of anyone but Feinstein. She had six weeks to act, and didn’t. Wasn’t investigation important during those six weeks?
Regards,
Shodan