Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Too bad she didnt sware to that under penalty of law. She's throwing spackle on a massive whole.

 

specifically, Grassley and Hatch

Both of them know better, from their experience w the Anita Hill Senate Hearing in Oct 1991;

back then, they called for

the FBI to investigate Prof Hill's accusations against then-SCOTUS nominee C Thomas; it took all but 3 days
Prof Hill to bring along witnesses to testify in the hearing
​

Now, they have reversed their stand on the accuser, caving in to Turtle-face McConnell, who just wants to plow this nomination thru

​

 

That's my line!

 

You know damn good and well this is not about justice but about disrupting the political process.

What is going on here is borderline unethical. We do not know who is creating the manipulation and drama. Everything going on is inconsistent and nonsensical. Either Ford is engaging in unethical behavior or she is being advised on how to create mass hysteria.

Where Ford has gone wrong is naming all of these alleged witnesses outside of an investigation. This is HER doing. None of them can collaborate a story if there are no details. None of them want any part of this scandal especially when there is no formal legal investigation. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain. If the Democrats or Ford were really concerned about justice, they would not be outing these alleged witness outside of an investigation.
Ford is putting herself in a bad position. Unless she has some sort of strong evidence in the coming days, she either needs to walk away from this or start an investigation outside of these confirmation hearings.

 

Really? She can't even remember the year, or the place, yet questioning, from that, whether it might have been someone, who, btw lived in a house that COMPLETELY matches the description (ie, he was likely there), AND looks almost identical to Kavanaugh...AND given the lack of Ford's ability to remember pretty basic details like what YEAR this happened....that is insulting? What exactly in not credible about it, given the haziness on such crucial information? I'm curious...did you read Whelan's analysis? Have you seen the comparative pictures? Probably not...yet you are quite sure it isn't credible, even though it matches up directly with FORD's own recollections of the incident? Please do elaborate on what makes this scenario so lacking in credibility, especially when it coincides with Ford's own recollections of events? Do you think Ford is lying???

Yet, conversely, you find it totally credible to just accept any accusation, regardless of the lack of any corroborating evidence, and despite the contradictions both from those who Ford said were there, and from the complete body of evidence compiied during SIX FBI background checks???

I'm not saying Ford is lying or making this up. I just pointed out that this is evidentiary issues with taking her story at face value. I have no problem with her story being heard. I do have problems with those just leaping to judgement based on so little evidence, and when the vast body of evidence every where else indicates a completely different story. You CAN both hear the accusation, and conclude that there isn't sufficient information to make a firm decision on its accuracy. Doing the opposite, though (simply believing such accusations because they are there) leads down to a very bad place.

I'm curious, would you be so quick to accept any allegations thrown out there...if they were thrown out at YOU? I mean, they MUST be totally credible, right? Would you just march willingly into jail, without a peep? I suspect not...

 

At no point did I say her story is 100% fact that I believe. I don't know the facts. I have said that it deserves an investigation. I have never said I just accept her claim as complete fact to be believed without any further investigation.

The fact that she doesn't remember the year or specific place doesn't really matter at all. Other people who were there remember being there. So we know they were all there. The year and place don't really matter. There are parties from high school that happened, and I remember the party but I couldn't swear whether it was first semester jr. year or second semester jr. year. I certainly couldn't name the house where the party occurred.

 

It isn't about justice but it could be. That's why I like the idea of involving the FBI. But that was what my post said. Both sides are going to make this about politics. Too bad the FBI wasn't involved to help alleviate at least some of that.

It isn't good to blame potential victims for having the guts to come forward and say it's all HER doing. If only the victim would never come forward then there wouldn't be any problems.

 

Nobody is blaming her for being a victim in a sexual assault case. Nobody is suggesting this should be swept under the rug.

The point is she has turned this into a public tribunal and implicating people, all who are denying everything. There is not even smoke, much less a fire. But many of you are hoping this all burns down.

 

Respectfuly, I appreciate that you aren't one, but there are a whole lot of people saying these things.

 

who?

 

All the people in this thread who say she is making the whole thing up and it never happened would be a good start.

 

That's not 'blaming her for being a victim'.

Just in general, your position is moronic. I must believe the accuser or I am 'blaming someone for being the victim'? Nuts.

Blaming someone for being the victim would go like this 'it's her fault for not being able to defend herself'

 

You'll note the second half of the quote I responded to? The part where it says, "Nobody is saying this should be swept under the rug."?

 

Nobody is saying it should be swept under the rug. Go to the police like everyone else .

This is again moronic. Not believing the accuser means you want it 'swept under the rug'? Wtf

 

Statute of limitations has expired everywhere in the USA. Not a criminal mater, but the conduct and morals of a candidate for high office is still relevant to the congressional approval process. Just imagine for a second it was someone else. If Obama nominated Jeremiah Wright for the supreme court. Wouldn't all his non-illegal America-hating Muslim Communist talk be relevant to the nomination process?

Have you read all the posts where it was someone other than kavanaugh and she's just confused, or it was "only" attempted sexual assault so why are we even talking about it anyway?

 

That's not sweeping it under the rug. That's thinking she's wrong.

Haven't seen these at all.

None of this addresses your claim that everyone who doesnt believe Ford is 'sweeping it under the rug'

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniques_of_neutralization

If your goal here it to create your own, super narrow definition of what "sweeping under the rug" means, and declaring I'm wrong because I don't meet your definition, I'm not interested in playing strawman games with you. Sweeping under the rug = any attempt at neutralization.

 

I'll take this nonsense as your mea culpa.

 

You should not. Though of course that will not prevent you from doing so.