Asking questions of the only other person alleged to be in the room is so obvious an investigation strategy that attempts to paint it as partisan tactics just make you look foolish, IMO.
Is there a rule against it?
As opposed to a clear partisan attempt to rush it through while the Republicans still can, withholding and concealing whatever relevant information they fear might be revealed? :dubious:
Some of us are more concerned with the character of the nominee for a lifetime appointment than with his job interviewers’. Obviously you are not.
It sounds awful like you’re saying, “Democrats will behave in a partisan fashion, therefore Republicans should not fully investigate the credible claim that they’re about to seat an attempted rapist to the Supreme Court, because a full investigation risks the possibility that Republicans couldn’t seat the Republican-preferred judge to the court.”
Is that a fair summary of your position?
shrug I find feigned outrage less and less convincing with each occurrence. I don’t claim any certainty on whether she is a willing schemer or just a useful idiot. I don’t think it really matters either. It would still be foolish for the Republicans either way. They’d get criticized by the #BelieveWomen crowd for any serious attempt at cross-examining Ford.
I don’t believe anyone in this whole sordid situation really cares that the truth comes out, except for either Kavanaugh or Ford (but not both).
I think Feinstein legitimately tried to keep this confidential, per Ford’s request, and that others got hold of it late in the process and didn’t care about the confidentiality. I don’t see this as a conspiracy to throw something out at the last minute. It was an unfortunate mistake by several parties, including Ms. Ford. Maybe she’s a political novice, but once she put it to paper and sent it to DC, it was almost certain to get out. Once folks less deliberative than Feinstein got their hands on the letter, they did what they had to do. This is just the way things work in Washington.
I mean, remember when Merrick Garland couldn’t get a hearing because the voters deserved a chance to decide, when a year wasn’t enough time to let him have a seat?
When there’s a credible accusation that the guy you’re trying to seat tried to stifle the screams of his victim during an attempted rape (and really, that’s the detail that gets me, the hand over the mouth–that’s what removes any possibility of him not knowing what he’s doing), that’s a pretty fucking textbook example of why the Senate needs to have the hearing process. This isn’t, “How does your concurring opinion in a case thirty years ago about a traffic stop implicate the seventeenth amendment,” this is, “Are we seating an unconvicted violent criminal to the highest court?”
shrug I find unfeigned dismissiveness of violence against women less and less interesting with each occurrence, so getoutahere with your shrugs, dude.
Hey, Ultravires. Wanna take care of your people here? He ain’t gonna listen to me, but maybe he’ll listen to you.
If the objective is to find truth, or at least assess the likelihood of a particular thing being true, I would say that putting two people up in a hot seat before a panel of politicians and TV cameras is a particularly poor method of getting at the facts.
Granted, not as poor as throwing Dr. Ford into a lake and seeing if she floats or sinks, but pretty poor nonetheless.
I would suggest that the better means of evaluating claims like this would be to have investigators go into the field, interview people, assess whatever evidence there may be, and allow that the guide the process of determining who is telling the truth. I cannot say that boiling the matter down to a literal he said/she said and the entire nation trying to divine if an ill-timed sip of water indicates a lie.
There is another option.
The Senate already had the hearing process. The accuser and the only participant that knew about the accusation during “the hearing process” chose to remain anonymous and silent throughout.
We’re likely to never know the answer to that with certainty. Assuming, for a moment, that Kavanaugh is in fact innocent, how could he prove it? Conversely, assuming for a moment that Ford is telling the truth, how could she prove it? Neither one can. The accusations are both unverifiable and irrefutable. Kavanaugh and the alleged accomplice deny it. Ford insists she’s not lying. The rest of us have no way to know for certain who is.
So I’m curious: if Kavanaugh makes it to the court, that’s 40% of Republican appointees to the court that have serious, credible allegations of sexual harassment/assault against them. How does that compare to the Republican population in general? To the population of judges in general? To the population of lawyers in general?
I suspect–I hope!–it’s far higher than average. If so, why is it so much higher? Is it mere coincidence, or is there something about sex offenders that make them more attractive appointees to the court for Republican presidents?
What the hell is going on?
HD: Is it your view that in any case in which the evidence consists of two people with contradictory testimony that there is no way to decide what happened and we should just do nothing?
No, of course it isn’t. That’s only your view as to this particular circumstance. I wonder what’s different about this…
And if this were a sporting event and you were the referee, that’d be a fine call. When it’s for the future of our nation, fuck that sort of technicality.
We might never know. Kavanaugh could increase the chances of showing his innocence by asking for the names of other partygoers and then calling them to testify under oath. He could increase the chances by calling on witnesses who testify under oath that they spent a lot of time around him in high school and never saw him drinking or going to house parties. He could call on the therapist and ask her to clarify any discrepancies in her record.
Ford could call on people at the party and ask similar questions.
I mean, fuck it, really, you can’t imagine how an old attempted-rape accusation could be investigated? I’m having real trouble believing you’ve put much thought at all into this. This isn’t rocket science. Of course an investigation into old events can happen.
It is, of course, trivially easy to flutter one’s hands and say, “There’s nothing to be done, so don’t investigate any more!” but that’s some seriously partisan shit, covering up truth and risking putting a sexual predator on the court to gain partisan advantage. If that’s what you’re about–if you’re willing to take that serious risk–own it.
Not at all surprised to see that the only two options you offer to characterize a woman who has done nothing but speak are denigrating attacks.
Keep the letter confidential, ask Kavanaugh about it during a closed session, and not announce it publicly after the hearings were done and call for an investigation.
And therefore her protests about how important it is to investigate (which she didn’t do) and how she should respect the wishes of the accuser (which she also didn’t do) are difficult to believe.
'It’s really important to investigate this! It was my job to do it and I didn’t but it’s really important!
And it’s really important to respect the wishes of the accuser! Which I also didn’t do but it’s really important! Really! And we need to hold politicians who don’t do those things accountable!’
OK, not really. But it is important!’
Regards,
Shodan
Who are you arguing with here? Are you saying that because Feinstein sucks, the Senate should ignore the accuser? If not, what are you saying that the Senate should do?
So Feinstein is a shithead, and we shouldn’t care about what she says.
THAT DOESN’T CHANGE ANYTHING.
It’s possible to say she delayed longer than she should have, and that STILL there should be an investigation, because, and this is key, some of us don’t really want a sexual predator on the highest court. It’s bad enough having one of the three branches of government run by one.
Who are you addressing? None of what you said has anything to do with what I posted.
Regards,
Shodan
Heh. Oh, by the way Judge Kavanaugh, have you ever attempted to rape anyone? Just, uh, asking.