Chuck Grassley is trying to have it both ways.
“I don’t doubt that she believes what she says.”
That’s been the GOP talking point for the last two days: Something bad happened to Ford, but it was so long ago that we don’t know what the details were and we don’t know that Kavanaugh did it. They do not want a repeat of a harsh cross examination a la Specter v. Hill.
It is like trying to balance on a knife’s edge, and I’m not sure it will work.
That seems substantially similar to what Feinstein had to say about it:
What I see is them avoiding calling her a liar, since these days a woman is to be believed, regardless of the allegation.
The Washington Examiner reports some interesting quotes by key senators:
It doesn’t sound like the Republicans intend to budge from their Monday opportunity for Ford to testify.
I know this has some problems with it, but I would prefer a closed session. I’d prefer there weren’t cameras to add to the circus atmosphere. Releasing a transcript is fine, but no cameras, please.
Boom? Are we cheering for sides now?
If I were Ford, I would not want King to testify on my behalf, based on how she comes off in that letter. I would also advise King to consult a lawyer or someone less impassioned before sending out any further correspondences about this issue.
Listening to CNN right now, it sounds like the Republicans are all pretty much lining up behind “she has an opportunity to testify, and it will be a shame if she doesn’t.” I’d like to see some sort of investigation go forward, but I’m OK with the Committee asking her to testify first. It doesn’t have to be either/or.
OK, It’s Wednesday, and Grassley’s sayingFord’s written testimony has to be turned in by Friday morning if she wants to testify on Monday. And it’s Monday or nothing.
So she’s hiding out from death threats, while Kavanaugh’s already been prepping for his potential Monday testimony in a mock hearing. Fair’s fair, right? :mad:
Yes.
Many of us feel Kavanaugh had already demonstrated that he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court, and might should be impeached from the Circuit Court of Appeals.
I don’t feel that it should take this to potentially knock his nomination into the circular file, but people notice allegations like this a lot more than dry stuff about whether he was telling the truth about the Manuel Miranda hacking. I’ll work to bring about a more rational world, but in the meantime, I’ll work with the one we’ve got.
Well, sure. But what King’s letter provides is a road map of where an investigation should go next. Once the investigation is complete, a proper witness list can be assembled.
The problem, of course, is that there’s no investigation, and unlikely to be one before January.
That’s why the nomination was made, wasn’t it?
I’m cheering for a full investigation, and the more witnesses and knowledgeable individuals that come forward, the more likely the Senate and/or the WH will be pressured into requesting/ordering the FBI to conduct an investigation.
EDIT: As a political partisan, I hope Kavanaugh is not confirmed. But my partisan feelings are much less significant than my feelings about sexual assault and rape culture.
OK.
Yes, it would appear the Republicans are taking another calculated political risk. Seems like a mistake to me, but then I thought it was a mistake, politically, to not vote on Garland, and I was wrong about that.
In hindsight, this interview by Ford’s attorney seems to be a pretty serious misstep.
I don’t follow. In what way was this a misstep?
Attorney said she was willing to testify, didn’t mention anything about an FBI investigation being conducted first or any other precondition. Now she’s been offered the opportunity and doesn’t appear to want to.
Do you really not follow this?
It wasn’t. At least not until there’s a hearing that she fails to appear at.
You’re still optimistic that she might appear, in spite of the letter from her attorney?
Yes, really, I’m not following. You’re assuming that “willing to testify” must include every possible precondition? You’re assuming that “willing” means “eager?”
It *seems *like you’re reaching for any way to attack and marginalize Ms Ford. It seems further that you assume that she is a liar. It seems even further that if she opts not to testify you will consider it vindication for your assumption.
.
She lives in California, right? Like all the way across the country. And she was given a week’s notice about the hearing, and the notice was via emails apparently, and it was less than 24 hours before the conservative media started running stories about how she hadn’t accepted the invitation yet.
I know it’s a fast moving story and all that, but this is a bit ridiculous.
LOL. So when Smyth and Judge said it didn’t happen, those were witness and knowledgeable perspectives, but we didn’t get any “Boom” out of that. 