She wasn’t going to get one. There were several points of interest that the Dems noted and asked for investigation. The invariable response was no, fuck you, you can’t make us do shit, eleven of us, ten of you, neener neener.
As for Ms Feinstein, she was legally obligated to pass along the letter, regardless of what she might have thought about it. If Ms Ford had declined to press the matter further, to avoid exposure, Ms Feinstein would have to trust in the discretion of the FBI. Not least because if it came out later that she had such a thing and kept it to herself? That would have met with your approval?
Well, was it? Are you mad at Feinstein for leaking the accusation, or mad at her for not leaking the accusation earlier?
And why are you trying to change the subject to Feinstein’s actions? Let’s stipulate that she timed the release for maximum political shenanigans. And?
What the hell are you replying to? This doesn’t have anything to do with my posts. This needs to be investigated and it’s good that it appears that the Senate will not ignore it.
Shodan: What do you think Sen. Feinstein should have done, given Dr. Blasey’s request to keep the letter confidential?
I don’t have any trouble believing the timing was some political calculation. But I also don’t think the superficial explanation–that she was following her constituent’s request–is all that hard to believe.
About two months ago, Senator Grassley had some powerful words about what it means to complain about sexual harassment by a sitting judge:
Let’s see a show of hands: who thinks that Ford is, and will be, treated in a manner consistent with how Senator Grassley said whistleblowers should be treated in this quote?
I don’t see the problem. We don’t, btw, have his exact words anyway. We have someone paraphrasing what he said. Perhaps he said something like: “I was not at a party like the one she described”. Or any number of other ways of putting it that could be paraphrased the way it was.
Both of these sound like foolish suggestions from a Republican perspective. All Ford has to do is shed a few tears during her cross-examination and there will be memes for weeks about how mean the Republicans are for having their lawyer rough up ‘this poor innocent woman that deserves to be believed’. A cynic might even think that’s the goal here.
“Cynic” isn’t the word I’d use for someone who thinks that Ford has any participation in such a scheme. I get why you’d prefer that word, and more strongly get why you don’t want to take ownership of such a repugnant suggestion.
Oh please. In any other context you’d see that reducing the means for political grandstanding, and increasing the chance of careful incisive questioning, would be a good thing. That you’ve spun it into some kind of chauvinist fear of women manipulating men with their tears is on you.
The Republicans are being played for suckers and they are falling for it. There is no winning in this scenario. Short of Ford having a Perry Mason moment where she admits that she lied, the Dems will talk about how believable she was in her testimony and how they are convinced that Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.
Further, Grassley can call every witness in the world, up to and including Jesus Christ himself, and Schumer and the Dems will accuse them of “rushing” the process and not doing a “full” investigation of an uncorroborated allegation which will be nothing but a 36 year old he-said, she-said.
This is a clear partisan attempt to delay the vote past the mid-term elections and/or hope to peel off Collins and Murkowski. If they cared about Ford’s allegations, this could have been investigated and questioned during the confirmation hearings. This was a gotcha ploy to release it at the 11th hour.