The GOP’s moral compass always points to power.
We certainly can’t have that, can we? :rolleyes:
At least two mind readers. There is no question that is the goal of the Democrats.
Further, again, the FBI has declined to investigate. Yes, Trump could order them to investigate, but didn’t your side say how bad that was when Comey was in charge? The FBI should be independent, blah, blah, blah?
As I said earlier, Ford is getting the most thorough investigation of her claims than any other person who has made an allegation of sexual assault in the history of the world. She also has an opportunity to tell her story to the entire world.
In the end, however, the Dems will say the nomination was rushed and improperly investigated.
The FBI investigation of Anita Hill’s claims was done in 3 days. But we’re all just desperate, aren’t we?
Indeed, what other allegation of sexual assault gets to be the focus of not just 1, but 2 whole interviews! And she gets to submit a written statement! The generosity of Republican Senators is truly without bound.
It doesn’t take mind-reading to see the nose on your face.
Because [list=A][li]Their word isn’t worth anything. See Feinstein, Diane, and Corey “I Am Spartacus, and So Is My Wife” Booker. And [*]Nothing will ever be enough. Ford says she doesn’t want to testify publicly. Republicans offer to let her testify in private. That’s not enough. Republicans offer to send staffers to her home to get her testimony. That’s not enough. The FBI has already investigated Kavanaugh. That’s not enough. If the FBI investigates again for three days, that won’t be enough. [/list]At least we know how the process for Supreme Court nominees will be handled from now on. And no, the next time a Dem is in the White House and a seat on the Court becomes available, “no backsies” is not gonna fly. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Any other 36 year old allegation of sexual assault would not even get that. But again, you are ignoring the fact that she has a national stage and has every liberal journalist in the world aching for corroboration. You cannot deny that if there is someone out there with information, they have been contacted.
we already saw what the process is for a SC opening when a Dem is president in 2016. The process is nothing happens.
That’s what I said in 2016.
Glad you finally caught up.
I kind of agree with this.
The Senate confirmation process doesn’t owe Ms Ford anything. They need to decide for themselves whether or not to confirm Kavanaugh. Certainly they can take her claim into context, but she doesn’t have rights in regards to this that they need to respect. The notion that she can demand anything smacks of political motivations.
On a completely unrelated note, one thing I was hoping would come out in questioning Ms Ford was how she knows that Kavanaugh was attempting to rape her. Her story was that he was a stone-drunk guy trying to take off her clothes. How does she know what his intentions were (assuming he even had any coherent thoughts at the time)? Significance of this - for those wondering - is that it relates to the issue of whether her imagination might be filling gaps in a hazy 36 year old memory, which could have broader application as well.
You mean the lamestream fake news media? I’m confused, I thought they weren’t to be trusted.
Frankly, the fact that journalists see this story as a positive revenue generating activity doesn’t absolve the actual decision makers in this process from doing their jobs.
That’s your classic False Dichotomy right there. And, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Democrats wanting to stall. That’s about the only tool they have in the political process.
As much as the Republicans have stymied an investigation, Ford doesn’t have too difficult a task ahead of her. She only needs to convince Flake to vote “no” or to vote for a delay and a further investigation. She almost certainly loses that chance if she decides to skip the opportunity to testify on Monday, either in DC or at a place of her choosing per Grassley’s offer.
I’d pay $1,000 right now to anyone who can guarantee a Republican asks her that question.
well maybe he was trying to take off her clothes to wash and dry them since they looked a bit dirty?
Rumor confirmed, cross-dressing Kavanaugh forcibly strips women for their fabulous outfits.
Which only goes to show that he has sympathy for the LGBTQX community after all!
I agree as well. She tried to get this out there anonymously and hopefully derail his confirmation without giving him a chance to respond. That didn’t work, so she demanded a delay so she could be heard. She got that, but it wasn’t the delay she wanted, so now she is demanding an additional delay so that the precise type of investigation she demands can be performed.
Much is said about how an alleged sexual assault victim has a right to be “heard.” That is absolutely true of any allegation of criminal activity. If I go to the police station and tell them I was robbed, they don’t tell me to get out. They are the pros and they investigate according to procedure and their training and expertise.
I don’t get to demand how they investigate. They have the discretion, up to and including telling me that an investigation will not be fruitful, to do whatever they want. Flake, Collins, and Murkowski fell for this okey doke on Sunday, but it seems that they have come around to allow sanity to prevail.
I didn’t say it, but I think the implication was that even if this was true, you cannot prove that the goal was rape. It could be that Kavanaugh was trying to get her clothes off and improperly persuade her to consent to sex.
Note how I said “improperly.” That being said, that may not be an attempted rape even if every word she said is true.
:dubious: Yes, the confused female could not possibly know what was happening to her. This kind of BS is infuriating to women who have been through similar events and are asked if it was somehow a misunderstanding.
He held her down and covered her mouth so her screams wouldn’t be heard.
I’m sure his intentions were nothing but good. Jesus.
I suppose we’ll never know the answer to this, but I keep wondering what she expected Feinstein (or Eschoo) to do as a result of her letter, assuming she trusted either of them to keep it confidential.
How does anyone prove “attempted rape”? I suppose that, in a legal sense, there is some minimum things that a prosecuting attorney has to prove, but it seems to me that “I feared he was trying to rape me” is perfectly believable if the scenario she described happened. Certainly enough for the purposes of this Committee. Call it “sexual assault” if it makes you feel better.