Biden has apologized for how badly he handled it—though even he had the FBI investigate. Grassley has the benefit of three decades of social progress, but doesn’t seemed to have learned much.
I was under the impression that “lie detectors” are bullshit, so why would they even be brought up in this case? Hasn’t the concept been discredited?
This point is clarified in detail on tonight’s Rachel Maddow, with special emphasis that “standard practice” borders on “routine”. Of course you hand it over to the FBI, it’s what they do. And in the case of Thomas, they did, bad-a-bing, bad-a-boom, done. Maybe not emptying the lint trap on the dryer, but not a big hairy-ass deal.
So the “reason” for not giving it to the FBI, like “they don’t do that” has gone way past spin and plunging toward “avalanche of bullshit”. So that isn’t the reason.
So, what is?
(Maybe would have provided a link to the show, but not real sure how to do that easily. Starts off with some background stuff about how drug use, partying, etc. came to be included in a standard background check because Ginzberg smoked weed once, but you can easily afford to skip that.)
(Not the Notorious RBG, bless her heart, an earlier Ginsburg.)
The gap in that quote is this tweet: https://twitter.com/therealcornett/status/1042095258945900545?s=21
I clicked the link and looked at the tweeter’s history. I don’t think someone who will cite that is a good-faith advocate. Sorry, Ditka, but you blew it. (Shaking head, sadly.)
This a bit murky. Yes, he says, the White House put the FBI on the case. “A handful of interviews”, we are given to understand, which I guess means not very many, so no big deal? Anyway, a handful.
But that’s different! says Sen Grassley because “…Hill’s accusations weren’t public at the time…”. And furthermore, after they became public …“we did not ask the FBI to conduct an investigation"… Well, no, they already had, hadn’t they? "…Instead, we reopened the hearing and assessed the testimony that was given on our own.”
So…anyone following this argument? With Hill, they had both an FBI investigation and a reopened hearing. What does it being “public” have to do with anything, why is that the determinative point? Would their responsibilities be any different if nobody knew but them? Do they agree on certain procedures so long as nobody finds out, but change if it gets unwanted attention? Da fuq going on, here?
And when he says “we did not ask the FBI to conduct an investigation" doesn’t he mean they didn’t ask that another investigation be done, because there already was the one FBI had done. What does that even mean?
“I have no memory of this alleged incident”
the salient fact is that kavanaugh has not called for an investigation to clear his own name. he’s already testifying anyway, no question of volition there.
You omitted a bit there that seems relevant: “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”
Have we gotten to the “lying whore” stage yet, or are we still on “partisan hack?”
Ah. I see. “Lying partisan hack-whore.” Carry on.
Yes, and back then the FBI did an investigation in 3 days. Now they refuse, because the White House won’t let them. So let’s not make comparisons to Anita Hill.
It became public! Can’t have an FBI investigation then!
I stand corrected. The FBI took 2 days. Steven Dennis of Bloomberg: [INDENT] Newsweek 1991: White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray ordered the FBI to investigate Anita Hill’s allegations. The FBI conducted interviews and finished its background check report two days later. [/INDENT] https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1042485095943286785
The GOP does not want a full and fair investigation. There are multiple witnesses that could be interviewed by the FBI, professionals at background checks. No dice. The railroad must continue to a fixed destination.
Robert Costa of WAPO: One plugged-in Republican tells me that several top GOP lawmakers have told colleagues that they hope Ford declines to show up for the hearing even as they issue statements urging her to do so.
So, its Monday, and Senator Grassley slithers into the room, with everybody else. Glancing over, he sees that the chair reserved for Dr. Ford is empty, but pretends not to notice. Everybody sits, and Grassley looks up and peers out: “Dr. Ford? Is Dr. Ford here?”
And a woman jumps up from the front row and says “I’m Dr. Ford!” and another jumps up and says “I’m Dr. Ford” and a third and a forth, and then every woman in the rooms stands up and says:
“Me Too!”
I think that Grassley vs Blasey-Ford is going to be one of the high face cards in the “Death of Republican” memorial playing card deck.
Ford’s attorney’s move was overreach and it backfired, cause now she’s probably lost the 1% shot at swinging a couple of repubs. It just makes it look like she’s overtly lined up with dems. There was no way a) it would make the committee recommend the White House ask the investigation to be reopened or b) that the White House would do it. I guess she figured it was worth a shot anyway.
Too bad this didn’t come out a month ago. I do like seeing dems play dirty, but they are out of practice and got too cute with this one.
I can’t remember: did Anita Hill come forward on her own, or because she was about to be outed anyway? And did she have to move out of her home and stay away from her office due to death threats?
Imposing hard and fast artificial deadlines under such circumstances (like the one tomorrow morning for her written testimony) seems like a deliberate ploy to make sure she makes her case a good deal more poorly than she might have.
I don’t know if Hill got death threats or not. She came forward because Nina Totenberg told her that she (Totenberg) was going to out her anyway because someone in the Senate leaked her affidavit. I posted a link about it many pages back.
It’s BS, but good PR. Ford, or at least her attorney, is trying to influence people who don’t know any better. And we don’t know how the polygraph was administered. I heard on the radio, so no cite, that the person who administered the polygraph read back her statement to her and asked if it was true. She said Yes.
That description of it might be complete bullshit, but my point is that we don’t know even if it had the credibility of a normal polygraph, which is Not Very Much.
I think she and/or her attorney is hoping no one asks why she had time to hire an attorney, arrange and take a polygraph, but not time to put together her statement.
At this point my nasty and suspicious mind is tending towards the conclusion that she is stalling in order to try to push the nomination after the mid-terms. She will keep stalling and adding pre-conditions to testifying until the GOP says “enough already” and holds a vote. Then she (and the other hypocrites in the Democratic party) can scream that she wasn’t given a chance to be heard.
Nothing will ever be enough.
To be clear - Democrats are not calling for investigation because they want to know the truth. They want to stall.
Regards,
Shodan
Playing dirty is what Dems do best. And if it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all (see Mr. Ellison, D-Wifebeater).
This whole thing is a joke. DiFi sat on the letter for months. She won’t share the whole letter with the majority on the committee, still. She had it when she had an hour long one-on-one with Brett, never brought it up. It’s Dems who leaked it to the media.
Dems shouldn’t be rewarded for bad behavior, and I suspect this could rile up the GOP base for pulling such shenanigans.
Anyone who cares more about the timing of an announcement than the idea that a SC nominee tried to forcibly rape someone at a party, needs their moral compass checked.
Glad we have a mind-reader on the board.
But what are the dire consequences of taking them at their word? The FBI was able to complete their investigation into Anita Hill’s allegations in two or three days. Sure, it would be shiny if Kavanaugh could be sworn in before the first Monday in October, but if he has to wait an extra week or two, why, we’d just roll with it like it was 2016, right?