Is this the worst political hit-job ever?

[Purdue97]

And???
I know you will say this is "Fake News" and/or a lie but -
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html

How does that not make Democrats and/or Ford/her lawyers look worse?

-So the argument for not releasing the information is due to confidentiality, which in this case I get. That said, dealing with a SCOTUS nomination, everyone knows it will not stay that way. Feinstein's office, the people that knew about it, denied leak, per your article. So they are either lying, leaked it, against Ford's wishes. Or Ford and her lawyers, the only other entities with knowledge of letter/incident, leaked it.

-"I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED." That is last sentence of letter to Feinstein. However Feinstein says she cannot recall if she was in contact with Ford. Wow. Now I am supposed to believe that Feinstein cares about Ford's well being, her story, and was not playing games with the timing of the release.

-So the letter she wrote in July stated four people at party. In 6 weeks time it was changed to two. Any credibility just left the building.

I am fine with an investigation. Actually think there should be one. The longer this plays out the shadier it gets. Similar to collusion/conspiracy investigation. Only hope Ford or Dems have is if said witness states a version of this happened or incident did happen.

 

[GABoilermakers]

If your first inclination is to attack the victim than you are part of the problem.

Did the original poster even attack anyone other than Feinstein? The left has seriously lost their minds.

 

[70boiler]

I believe (but not completely sure) this was the press article that reputedly triggered the forwarding to the FBI
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/

 

[Purdue97]

Maybe you should understand what an FBI background investigation is and how it's conducted. It would never uncover this on its own.

Not true. It very well might. However they would have had to talk to MS Ford specifically, since she is the only one that thinks this incident happened. And she would have had to mention the incident. Then for FBI to take it seriously her story would have had to stay the same and not change.

 

[70boiler]

...
I am fine with an investigation. Actually think there should be one. The longer this plays out the shadier it gets. Similar to collusion/conspiracy investigation. Only hope Ford or Dems have is if said witness states a version of this happened or incident did happen.

I agree that an investigation is appropriate. While I am not a Kavanaugh supporter, neither do i think a false allegation should be a roadblock. Unfortunately, the politics of the situation as well as the President wrongly asserting that the FBI doesn't do that, will clearly prevent the same.
I also understand the questionable nature of polygraphs but do recognize their value to a degree and am candidly surprised Kavanaugh hasn't taken and passed one if he is clear on his recollection.
Nonetheless, I think given the structure as it exists, her failure to appear and directly confront it all will, and probably should, doom this issue as a basis for denial of Senatorial consent.

 

[Purdue97]

I have read every article I could find about this - most say the witness says "he can not remember the incident"; some say nothing about the witness; Fox news says the witness disputes her account of what happened.

Along with this, I read that Kavanaugh's mother, a judge, was somehow involved in a legal dispute with the witnesses' parents. Other accounts say "not true" I went to two fact-checking websites and both said that it is not true that Kavanaugh's mother was in any way involved with witnesses' parents. Honestly, I don't know what to believe any more.

Kavanugh's mother was a judge. By coincidence she was hearing a case against Ford's parents(defendants) back in the 90's bought by a mortgage company(plaintiff) that dealt with foreclosure of their home. Ford's parents were able to refinance home, the mortgage company withdrew claim, and Kavanaugh's mother dismissed the case. Basically a ruling for defendant.

Good decision IMO. The courts largely stayed out of it, directed two parties to some type of mitigator, the two parties worked it out, Fords kept their home.

The right wing sites caught wind of this and just jumped to the revenge theme without knowing whole story. They saw Kavanugh's mother as judge, who the defendant was, and ran with nonsense.

Kavanaugh's mother, Judge Martha Kavanaugh retired in 2001. Shame she was not around in 2008-2012 when many people lost their homes. Sounds like the country could have used this type of level headed, low involvement guidance.

 

[70boiler]

Kavanugh's mother was a judge. By coincidence she was hearing a case against Ford's parents(defendants) back in the 90's bought by a mortgage company(plaintiff) that dealt with foreclosure of their home. Ford's parents were able to refinance home, the mortgage company withdrew claim, and Kavanaugh's mother dismissed the case. Basically a ruling for defendant.

Good decision IMO. The courts largely stayed out of it, directed two parties to some type of mitigator, the two parties worked it out, Fords kept their home.

The right wing sites caught wind of this and just jumped to the revenge theme without knowing whole story. They saw Kavanugh's mother as judge, who the defendant was, and ran with nonsense.

Kavanaugh's mother, Judge Martha Kavanaugh retired in 2001. Shame she was not around in 2008-2012 when many people lost their homes. Sounds like the country could have used this type of level headed, low involvement guidance.

Seems like I read that the case had actually been assigned to a judge other than Martha Kavanaugh and that she became involved in the case solely in signing the agreed upon dismissal order.

 

[70boiler]

I think Ford's lawyer is dropping the ball. Another attorney and I had been discussing the situation and I sent her this text

I really don't understand the reticence of Dr. Ford, the Kavanaugh accuser, to openly testifying. She's taking shit now. Assuming it happened, go on sit at a table w him, look him in the eye, say "How could I ever forget who you are. You did it whether you admit it or not. You did it whether you remember it or not. I've lived with it and made a life but the truth matters and nothing these people can ask me or demean me with can change it and that truth is YOU DID IT "

I actually laughed out loud when she replied that she was more clear than ever that I had raised daughters and coached women athletes and always pushed them to be strong, honest and straightforward.
Still looks like the way I would recommend but what do I know?

 

[lbodel]

I agree that an investigation is appropriate. While I am not a Kavanaugh supporter, neither do i think a false allegation should be a roadblock. Unfortunately, the politics of the situation as well as the President wrongly asserting that the FBI doesn't do that, will clearly prevent the same.
I also understand the questionable nature of polygraphs but do recognize their value to a degree and am candidly surprised Kavanaugh hasn't taken and passed one if he is clear on his recollection.
Nonetheless, I think given the structure as it exists, her failure to appear and directly confront it all will, and probably should, doom this issue as a basis for denial of Senatorial consent.

George Bush ordered the FBI investigate the Anita Hill accusations.

It took the FBI a total of 3 days.

It's not a road block.

 

[lbodel]

Not sure what more you want. He's already stated he doesn't know what she's talking about and that he never saw Kavanaugh do anything to anyone the way she describes. I say let the FBI investigate it - should take about 4 hours to wrap up.

Well, he now "doesn't recall". Put it under oath and I'll believe it.

 

[lbodel]

Not sure I should bother responding to this crap.

Ok, and he says he was not there, does not remember an incident similar, and does not remember pulling Kavanaugh off of any woman ever. That is wrapped up in less than an hour. I would be more inclined to believe her if she would testify under oath instead of making demands to the Executive Branch, DoJ, and Senate about an investigation and accepting and establishing facts before she testifies. I mean that would be the point of an investigation-not let her or her lawyers define that.

So sure, getting both to testify would be a good first step-they said they do not want to. Pretty sure I have said that 3-4 times.

The polygraph has actually raised more questions. Who paid for it? Who administered it? How many times did she take it? Where are the results? That would be part of the investigation/testimony, for some reason it is a big secret.

And no, Ford does not have a few hundred people saying positive things about her. What was made for her was a letter from alum at her high school. A few hundred signed it, and if one looks at the letter it is signed alum from 1968-2018. She does not know those people. That is nowhere near the same as individual people that are character witnesses. People have not backed off what they said about Kavanaugh, just not public about it. Big difference.

Hmmm, the levels the Republicans went to get there or the levels Democrats went to stop it or at least delay the hearing?

Never said it was a farce, those are your words. What is a farce is the way it has been handled from the get go by Dems and Ford's lawyers.

For someone who doesn't want any background investigation on this done, you sure do have a lot of questions.

Bush ordered the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's accusations and it took them 3 days. If Trump ordered it yesterday, it could have been wrapped up before Monday.

Why not just do it?

 

[Purdue97]

Seems like I read that the case had actually been assigned to a judge other than Martha Kavanaugh and that she became involved in the case solely in signing the agreed upon dismissal order.

Yeah I had read that but heard on npr I think it was that she signed it but also had one or two of the earlier hearings. Anyway, that is the main idea of it. Not a revenge deal at ll by Ford.

 

[Purdue97]

For someone who doesn't want any background investigation on this done, you sure do have a lot of questions.

Bush ordered the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's accusations and it took them 3 days. If Trump ordered it yesterday, it could have been wrapped up before Monday.

Why not just do it?

Sure I have questions. I think any half way reasonable person does in all of this.

Where did I say that I did not want one done?

I do think that unless other alleged male witness comes out and said this happened or a version of this story happened it is a waste of time. He said he is not talking. So far Ford does not want to testify either unless there is an investigation first.

Hard to investigate something from 40ish years ago when the one person that remembers does not know details of house location, how she got there, how she left, number of people there, does not want to testify, and other male witness does not want to testify and does not remember it etc. Then she would have to explain why she scrubbed her social media of extreme partisan comments, hired a lawyer if she did not want to go public, and took a lie detector test.

Try to put the screws to Judge for a few hours and see what happens. My guess is the FBI will ask him questions, he will answer, and as soon as FBI repeats questions, rewords them differently, gets aggressive, Judge's lawyer says we are out of here.

 

[70boiler]

George Bush ordered the FBI investigate the Anita Hill accusations.

It took the FBI a total of 3 days.

It's not a road block.

I'm aware of that. It's a roadblock only because neither the President nor the Judiciary Committee are willing to ask the FBI to do so, and the FBI recognizes that there is no current federal crime alleged to be able to independently investigate (even if it wanted to, which I am pretty confident they don't).

 

[BuilderBob6]

Right or wrong, Ford has no leverage here. Maybe if she appeared before the committee her testimony would convince some members that an investigation should then be initiated.

The pubs certainly have gotten together on their response. For the most part they have said the right things and been very respectful toward her. They know how toxic this thing could be, especially with the midterms around the corner. Even Trump is following the script. He came close to going off the rails today but shut it down in time. Kelly Anne must have put some scrotum cuffs on him.

 

[ecouch]

Democrats are really turning a key here. Listen to Harris, Schumer, DiFi...Gillibrand said that no hearing is necessary because BK is guilty. Go listen to Blumentahal. Listen to Hirono...she blames all men...and said she would rather the seat set empty for years to come than allow a Republican nomination. How did we get here?

I really hope that Democrats don't change our country like this. From pastors to engineers...we can't go down the road the Democrat leadership is currently steering us. Nothing to do with policy. There is an ethical issue at hand.

 

[70boiler]

Nothing to do with policy. There is an ethical issue at hand.

I certainly agree with this portion.

 

[ecouch]

I agree

I'm glad you agree with my position on the current Democratic leadership.

What can be done about this?

 

[70boiler]

I'm glad you agree with my position on the current Democratic leadership.

What can be done about this?

Lol... I like that.

 

[indy35]

Democrats are really turning a key here. Listen to Harris, Schumer, DiFi...Gillibrand said that no hearing is necessary because BK is guilty. Go listen to Blumentahal. Listen to Hirono...she blames all men...and said she would rather the seat set empty for years to come than allow a Republican nomination. How did we get here?

I really hope that Democrats don't change our country like this. From pastors to engineers...we can't go down the road the Democrat leadership is currently steering us. Nothing to do with policy. There is an ethical issue at hand.

Maybe you should go back and read some of the Republican Senators with Merrick Garland, read what they said when everyone thought Hillary was going to win. Cruz thought the seat should remain empty during Clinton's turn. It's very easy to understand how we got here, two decades of Fox News propaganda has turned 1/3 of this country into immoral fools with the logic of a potato.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Maybe you should go back and read some of the Republican Senators with Merrick Garland, read what they said when everyone thought Hillary was going to win. Cruz thought the seat should remain empty during Clinton's turn. It's very easy to understand how we got here, two decades of Fox News propaganda has turned 1/3 of this country into immoral fools with the logic of a potato.

haha! bub you are SOLIDLY in that 33%.

 

[SqueakyClean]

My pappy always used to say there are three sides to every story, Yours, Mine, and the truth somewhere in the middle. I suspect that is what is going on here. That is why you need more than just the two sides (the equivalent "He Said / She Said"). I can understand Ford not wanting to go testify before a little legwork is done. I consider myself a relatively smart person, but even I know that walking into a room to be cross-examined by men who have studied / practiced law for 30+ years is a mistake unless you have at least one non-partial witness who can corroborate my story.
The FBI can and has done this type of investigation many times before. They have people that have been trained specifically for this type of investigation. With enough digging, you will be able to find someone who was at that party and remembers it. This is the type of situation where you need to do it right. Kavanaugh could help his credibility a lot by having his own polygraph test results or getting his friend to testify.

 

[hunkgolden]

My pappy always used to say there are three sides to every story, Yours, Mine, and the truth somewhere in the middle. I suspect that is what is going on here. That is why you need more than just the two sides (the equivalent "He Said / She Said"). I can understand Ford not wanting to go testify before a little legwork is done. I consider myself a relatively smart person, but even I know that walking into a room to be cross-examined by men who have studied / practiced law for 30+ years is a mistake unless you have at least one non-partial witness who can corroborate my story.
The FBI can and has done this type of investigation many times before. They have people that have been trained specifically for this type of investigation. With enough digging, you will be able to find someone who was at that party and remembers it. This is the type of situation where you need to do it right. Kavanaugh could help his credibility a lot by having his own polygraph test results or getting his friend to testify.

She has named three different people being in the house besides her and all three have said they have no idea what she's talking about and that wherever this happened they weren't there. Her attorney said on Monday she was was willing to do whatever it takes...and now she won't talk. Enough with the nonsense. Time to vote.

 

[SqueakyClean]

She has named three different people being in the house besides her and all three have said they have no idea what she's talking about and that wherever this happened they weren't there. Her attorney said on Monday she was was willing to do whatever it takes...and now she won't talk. Enough with the nonsense. Time to vote.

If this is true (haven't followed this story all that closely), then fine. Get those three people on the stand and be done with it. I would think that if these three people who the accuser has called upon as potential witnesses are saying that they do not believe that this happened, it would be very beneficial for Kavanaugh to have them testify right next to him. Why only have the accuser and the defendant speak? I would think the Republicans would be falling over themselves to get those three to the stand as soon as possible.
Let us be brutally honest about this. The Democratic leaders do not actually care about Ford. They care about trying to delay any nomination to the supreme court until the midterms when they would have a chance to try at least get a more moderate leaning candidate onto the court. On the flip side, Republicans don't "care" about Kavanaugh, specifically. They care about putting someone with Kavanaugh's values on the court as soon as possible because their majority in the House / Senate is at risk. They flat-out refused to consider Merrick Garland, saying that "the people should have a say in this nomination so we will delay until the election 11 months away." Now that there is an election 2 months away, that same argument is not being considered.

Politicians from both sides are just getting slimier. I'm really starting to think that two term limits are a good idea across the board for all government positions.

 

[MANelson85]

Maybe you should go back and read some of the Republican Senators with Merrick Garland, read what they said when everyone thought Hillary was going to win. Cruz thought the seat should remain empty during Clinton's turn. It's very easy to understand how we got here, two decades of Fox News propaganda has turned 1/3 of this country into immoral fools with the logic of a potato.

Potatoe

 

[indy35]

Potatoe

Misspelling potato used to be a scandal a potential candidate for president couldn't come back from. Now you can insult veterans, mock the disabled, and brag about sexual assault and a good part of the country couldn't' care less.

 

[SqueakyClean]

Misspelling potato used to be a scandal a potential candidate for president couldn't come back from. Now you can insult veterans, mock the disabled, and brag about sexual assault and a good part of the country couldn't' care less.

I know that we are all enjoying the hyperbole, but this kind of statement is part of the problem.
Most Republicans "CARE" that he says these things. They just don't think that the things he says outweigh the policy items he wishes to push through / change.
Your statement paints a broad brush that a significant portion of the population is, to all extents and purposes, evil. While your statement is not on the level of some of the more ludicrous statements that the fringe ends of the right / left spectrum are spewing, it is essentially the same thing.
Let's attack the problem, and not the people.

With that said, we've come a long way from Howard Dean's "YEEEEAAAAAARRRRRGGGG" essentially knocking him out of the primaries.

(EDIT: Though in fairness, reviewing my previous statement about "being brutally honest", my statement wasn't much better. We all fall into that trap fairly easily).

 

[indy35]

haha! bub you are SOLIDLY in that 33%.

There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be the "man in the street" Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology.

Think long and hard on that quote from the master of propaganda. Now which side ignores scientific data and history? Who makes wild claims in the face of all evidence? Fox News and the Republican party has damaged this country more than any other entity.

 

[chiefboiler23]

I know that we are all enjoying the hyperbole, but this kind of statement is part of the problem.
Most Republicans "CARE" that he says these things. They just don't think that the things he says outweigh the policy items he wishes to push through / change.
Your statement paints a broad brush that a significant portion of the population is, to all extents and purposes, evil. While your statement is not on the level of some of the more ludicrous statements that the fringe ends of the right / left spectrum are spewing, it is essentially the same thing.
Let's attack the problem, and not the people.

With that said, we've come a long way from Howard Dean's "YEEEEAAAAAARRRRRGGGG" essentially knocking him out of the primaries.

(EDIT: Though in fairness, reviewing my previous statement about "being brutally honest", my statement wasn't much better. We all fall into that trap fairly easily).

Couldn't disagree more with this, I have seen no real evidence that they do care. A couple of GOP's making vague statements of condemnation on twitter don't matter. I do agree that they are willing to overlook his "personality" as a President as long as he is pushing their agenda, but those two things aren't mutually exclusive. If they truly cared, they would look to push him out and have Pence take over, who would push the same agenda. Trump is useful to them regardless of his packaging. The more people come to terms that Congress doesn't, in general, care about the American people the more we can have useful conversation.

 

[SqueakyClean]

Couldn't disagree more with this, I have seen no real evidence that they do care. A couple of GOP's making vague statements of condemnation on twitter don't matter. I do agree that they are willing to overlook his "personality" as a President as long as he is pushing their agenda, but those two things aren't mutually exclusive. If they truly cared, they would look to push him out and have Pence take over, who would push the same agenda. Trump is useful to them regardless of his packaging. The more people come to terms that Congress doesn't, in general, care about the American people the more we can have useful conversation.

First, for clarification, I was referring to the voting Republican body, not the specific leaders. 99.5% of Americans are decent human beings who are just trying to make their lives a little better everyday. It's the 0.5% that appear to be the loudest and make the most headlines.
Second, as much as Donald says stupid / offensive / inaccurate things, it's not illegal to be an asshole. Unless he does something actually illegal, they can't push him out, even if they wanted to.
Third, I do not believe that ALL of congress does not care about the people. Some do. While I agree that many don't, they at least care enough about getting the best situation possible for the people they represent to keep them happy so thus be able to maintain their current powerful position via voting.

IT seems to me the biggest problem is that both sides are more eager to prove they are "right" with their philosophy to the point that they are sacrificing honesty in the process. It's literally becoming a "my way or the highway" type of argument. We do a lot better when we stop with the conniving and just get to work.

 

[Purdue97]

If this is true (haven't followed this story all that closely), then fine. Get those three people on the stand and be done with it. I would think that if these three people who the accuser has called upon as potential witnesses are saying that they do not believe that this happened, it would be very beneficial for Kavanaugh to have them testify right next to him. Why only have the accuser and the defendant speak? I would think the Republicans would be falling over themselves to get those three to the stand as soon as possible.
Let us be brutally honest about this. The Democratic leaders do not actually care about Ford. They care about trying to delay any nomination to the supreme court until the midterms when they would have a chance to try at least get a more moderate leaning candidate onto the court. On the flip side, Republicans don't "care" about Kavanaugh, specifically. They care about putting someone with Kavanaugh's values on the court as soon as possible because their majority in the House / Senate is at risk. They flat-out refused to consider Merrick Garland, saying that "the people should have a say in this nomination so we will delay until the election 11 months away." Now that there is an election 2 months away, that same argument is not being considered.

Politicians from both sides are just getting slimier. I'm really starting to think that two term limits are a good idea across the board for all government positions.

Pretty much said neither politician cares about Ford from the get go. But I will go a step farther in the term limit department. Do away with pensions as well. Make it be about people that want to serve.

 

[hunkgolden]

If this is true (haven't followed this story all that closely), then fine. Get those three people on the stand and be done with it. I would think that if these three people who the accuser has called upon as potential witnesses are saying that they do not believe that this happened, it would be very beneficial for Kavanaugh to have them testify right next to him. Why only have the accuser and the defendant speak? I would think the Republicans would be falling over themselves to get those three to the stand as soon as possible.
Let us be brutally honest about this. The Democratic leaders do not actually care about Ford. They care about trying to delay any nomination to the supreme court until the midterms when they would have a chance to try at least get a more moderate leaning candidate onto the court. On the flip side, Republicans don't "care" about Kavanaugh, specifically. They care about putting someone with Kavanaugh's values on the court as soon as possible because their majority in the House / Senate is at risk. They flat-out refused to consider Merrick Garland, saying that "the people should have a say in this nomination so we will delay until the election 11 months away." Now that there is an election 2 months away, that same argument is not being considered.

Politicians from both sides are just getting slimier. I'm really starting to think that two term limits are a good idea across the board for all government positions.

Get them on the stand and ask them what? Were you at this unknown house at an unknown day/month/year? You don't put people "on the stand" because someone comes out of the woodwork 35 years later and claims some kid tried to pull her bathing suit off. For all we know this lady is seriously mental...and you think the proper thing to do is start throwing people "on the stand"? Really?

 

[BuilderBob6]

For all we know she is telling the truth......and the FBI might turn up something with an investigation. They are pretty good at that. Maybe they find nothing.

If there's nothing to find it won't take long. Do we want the truth?

If both she and Kavanaugh testify as expected, one of them will be breaking the law. Do we care who?

Bush 41 ordered an investigation into Anita Hill's claims. Precedent set.

 

[hunkgolden]

For all we know she is telling the truth......and the FBI might turn up something with an investigation. They are pretty good at that. Maybe they find nothing.

If there's nothing to find it won't take long. Do we want the truth?

If both she and Kavanaugh testify as expected, one of them will be breaking the law. Do we care who?

Bush 41 ordered an investigation into Anita Hill's claims. Precedent set.

What would the crime be for unsuccessfully "attempting to disrobe" someone?

 

[BuilderBob6]

What would the crime be for unsuccessfully "attempting to disrobe" someone?

I'm not sure about the question. I assume lying to Congress under oath would be perjury, for either one of them. Not a lawyer.

 

[70boiler]

What would the crime be for unsuccessfully "attempting to disrobe" someone?

It depends upon the jurisdiction. In Illinois for instance, it could readily be charged as at least Battery, Criminal Sexual Abuse and/or Attempt (Criminal Sexual Assault)

 

[Bethboilerfan]

What would the crime be for unsuccessfully "attempting to disrobe" someone?

Attempted rape? Not sure but I suspect at least battery. [Definition. 1. In criminal law, a physical act that results in harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.]

 

[70boiler]

Attempted rape? Not sure but I suspect at least battery. [Definition. 1. In criminal law, a physical act that results in harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent.]

A normal criminal law type of definition of the crime of Attempt is
when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he or she does any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

A normal criminal law type of definition of the crime of Attempt is
when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he or she does any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.

Thanks - that is helpful.

 

[hunkgolden]

It depends upon the jurisdiction. In Illinois for instance, it could readily be charged as at least Battery, Criminal Sexual Abuse and/or Attempt (Criminal Sexual Assault)

Have you ever heard of a 17 year old kid being convicted of a crime for unsuccessfully attempting to remove someone's clothing?