I think Ford was just used as a political pawn. Do we really think Feinstein truly cared about her inner feelings? Wasnt she more after the larger political picture?
What was Feinstein expecting before releasing Ford’s letter?
That people at Trump rallies would shout “Lock her up! Lock her up!” about both Ford and Feinstein.
And you base this on what, exactly? Your gut feeling?
JFTR, the “I think” part of your post is wrong, if that’s the case. Please don’t confuse thought with feeling.
I don’t expect politicians to be above “the larger political picture”, but you offer a false dichotomy and I accept that Feinstein tempered her political bias to a large extent and did care about Ford’s wishes and feelings. I have not seen Feinstein to be the kind of callous politician who would steamroll over someone like Ford purely for political gain.
Feel free to turn that into an argument. I’m not seeing a really strong connection between the content of the link, and the words you use to describe it.
She did. Do you really not know this?
Funny like how?
I like beer, never blacked out. I would assume a whole host of folks whom like beer have never blacked out, right?
That’s not what you said. You said you didn’t find them to be a credible source in this instance. Sounds like cherry picking to me.
I never offered an opinion one way or the other as to whether I find the Intercept credible. I pointed out that they had affirmatively denied Feinstein or her staff were the source of the leak. Since all we have is their word, along with the word of Feinstein and her staff members, that’s the actual evidence available now. Against what, exactly? Your feels that Feinstein, her staff and the Intercept are all lying? Because Great Leader told you so? And you’re lecturing me on credibility?
Face it. You and others such as Urbanredneck like this meme because it suits the conclusion you want to draw. You want to believe that Dr. Blasey Ford was a helpless victim, shamelessly used by “the Demoncrats” for their own vile ends, and she was too stupid to even realize it.
It’s the same horrific notion as that Dr. Ford mistook Kavanaugh for her attacker. What complete unfounded rot. As someone who has been in her situation, I found her testimony entirely credible. You may forget the actual date. You may not remember the actual location. But you sure as hell remember the person who attacked you if you knew them at all before hand.
FFS, use your heads: If you knew someone casually, saw them regularly around at parties, used to date one of their friends… and then that guy, along with his favorite sidekick whom you also know, shoves you into a bedroom, holds you captive and you can watch his face in a mirror as he tries to ass rape you, do you honestly believe you would forget who was visiting this atrocious behavior upon your person? Really?
If you can talk yourself into believing garbage like this, you can talk yourself into believing any stupid sucker story you’re told. Including the one that, against no evidence whatsoever, accuses Senator Diane Feinstein of using Dr. Blasey Ford for her own selfish ends.
The only reason this “debate” even exists is so someone can push a false meme based on cobwebs and what certain men want to believe. I’m sick to death of this oft-used, totally dishonest Trumpian tactic.
Let’s ask the reverse question yeah?
Too many of YOU folks right here on this very board want so desperately to BELIEVE that ANY evidence to the contrary (or in this case NO Evidence in support) is thrown completely out the window .
Simply because it aligned with your political compass.
Shocked i am!!
Has Dr. Ford compained about the ‘leak’ or asked that it be investigated?
Belated recognition; great post.
This is true. However, Brett Kavanaugh is not one of these people.
The general public believes Ford (45%) over Kavanaugh (33%):
While previously several power men had been accused of sexual harassment/abuse in the #MeToo movement such as Harvey Weinstein; politicians of both parties generally spoke out against sexual abuse/harassment.
But for the 45% who believed Ford and saw Republicans overwhelmingly vote for Kavanaugh while the Democrats overwhelmingly opposed him it clearly makes the Democrats the #MeToo supporters and Republicans the #MeToo opponents.
So I see a significant impact on the election.
Had Merrick Garland been accused of the same thing, with the same strength of evidence, I would have expected him to withdraw (or at a minimum had a more thorough investigation).
How does that jibe with your “waaah waaah you only do things when it aligns with your political compass” theory?
I posted this elsewhere but the thread was locked so I will post it again here with some minor modification (mainly changing tense):
First, applying criminal trial levels of proof here is not appropriate. This was to determine if Kavanaugh was fit to sit on the Supreme Court. Something he is not entitled to.
Second, we have corroborating evidence that Kavanaugh is a sexually harassing kind of guy. From Julie Swetnick and Deborah Ramirez and Christine Blasey Ford.
In legal terms, they are corroborating each other as to the character of Kavanaugh so yeah…there is evidence by the actual definition of what constitutes evidence.
Third, you have the very credible testimony given by Blasey-Ford. Even a republican senator claimed it was credible (maybe more than one…I forget).
Fourth, Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony caught him in lies and weird fabrications.
No one is trying to send Kavanaugh to prison. We were trying to determine if he is fit to sit on the court. There is a rather long list of groups that do not think Kavanaugh should be on the court or, at the least, should be investigated further. Do you screech at them that they have “NO evidence”? Maybe what is happening is we are all adults and understand we can make coherent and rational determinations without a time machine and video taped proof in front of 100 witnesses.
What strength of evidence though? A single accusation is what we are talking about here…
I can kind of agree and wish that they would have put forth a different nomination (for slightly different reasons) but if not Kavanaugh then who? The next guy would have been worse for Democrats (imo) simply because the Republicans knew they could get ANYONE through
My different reason would be that an accusation, no matter how heinous, should not alter a person’s life. Should it have been investigated, was it?
Yes and yes.
Now some will say not investigated as thoroughly as they want. Fine, I can buy that. But some of you can lay that at the feet of the Democrat leadership. This should have come forth a whole lot sooner in the process than it did.
Oh yeah, here’s another funny thing: the right wingers are CONVINCED that Ford must have a faulty memory… and yet when Kavanaugh said that he has fallen asleep after drinking lots of beer, but he never passed out, and also that he never blacked out.
As as though the recollections of a teenage drunk is more reliable than that of a woman. Typical.
I think you’re wrong. Your move.
Once more, for emphasis, clarity, and feeling:
“Had Merrick Garland been accused of the same thing, with the same strength of evidence, I would have expected him to withdraw…”
Yes, exactly. Which is why I’ve commented before that it boggles my mind for why the Republicans went to bat for someone when they could have gotten an even more radical nominee on the bench.
The graveyards are full of indispensable men. There are also tons of indispensable men not on the Supreme Court. Somehow, we find a way to manage.
We also apply the same sort of logic to our everyday lives, all the time. “Oh, I don’t know who told me this, but I heard that someone got sick at that restaurant on the corner. Not sure when it happened or who it was… well, anyway, I’m not eating there ever again.” “Is that the babysitter who lost track of that kid that one time? I can’t remember her name, but it sounds similar. Let’s not take that risk, and we’ll hire the other one instead.”