And Kennedy decides to fuck us all

[rubato]

Kaveanughs frequent and proven lying is more than adequate reason to disqualify him from the Supreme court. Except to Republicans who regard lying a positive trait.

The GOP are corrupt in their souls and should be removed from office en masse.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

You're adorable, rube.

[Lord Jim]

Washington (CNN)Christine Blasey Ford said in a letter Tuesday that she wants an FBI investigation into her allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate holds a hearing on her allegations.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics ... index.html

Okay, well now Dr. Ford is making demands that exactly mirror the demands being made by the Senate Democrats...

The Dems are now overplaying their hand. Because a group of GOP Senators were refusing to proceed with a vote for Kavanaugh until Ford was given a hearing on her allegations, they were handed a complete gift that they would not otherwise have had; an opportunity to start building a public consensus against Kavanaugh's nomination through Ford's public testimony....

Then they might have been able to build on that to further delay the nomination with other things; an FBI investigation, calling additional witnesses etc...

But that apparently wasn't good enough for the Senate Democrats, and they decided they had to try to get the whole loaf upfront. (A strategy that it appears Dr. Ford and her attorney are coordinating with hand-in-glove.)

Unless they have Flake and the other Republicans who wanted the hearing on board with this, (and I doubt that they do) they are now pissing away the golden opportunity that they had. They are letting the Republicans off the hook for having to participate in hearing that was virtually certain to make them look bad, and giving the GOP Senators the chance to look like the reasonable ones, (to everyone except the Democratic base) "Hey, we wanted to give her the opportunity to tell her story, but she chose not to do so."

And they've also undermined Prof. Ford's credibility by having it now appear that she is prioritizing falling in line with the Democrats political strategy over getting her account before the committee...

The Senate Dems need a reality check. On their own, they have ZERO leverage here to make any demands. Kavanaugh was headed for certain confirmation until some Republicans endangered his nomination by announcing they couldn't vote for him until Dr. Ford was given a hearing. Now, unless they still have those Republicans on board with their additional demands, (which as I said, I believe is doubtful) they have let the Republicans off the hook and put Brett Kavanaugh's nomination back on track.

They need to rethink this quickly...

[RayThom]

she ain t showing up.
publicly or privately, she ain t coming.
she lost me.....
confirm.

I ain t so sure about that. For safety reasons it appears Ford wants an FBI investigation before she testifies. I have a gut feeling she will show up on Monday regardless of her prior statements. FYI -- I'd like to see the FBI get involved, too.

Christine Blasey Ford Wants F.B.I. to Investigate Kavanaugh Before She Testifies
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/p ... aring.html

[Big RR]

Jim--while I'm inclined to agree with you about the result, I'm getting sick and tired of the crap. These people have a job to do, and that is to decide whether the nominee should be confirmed or not; a very serious allegation has been raised and it should be investigated. And the investigation should be more than quickly rushed he said/she said hearings with virtually no way of determining the veracity of what is said. Yes, the republicans want to rush the nomination through and they might be stuck--too damn bad. Yes, the dems might have screwed around with the timing to achieve the result. But the simple fact is that the job they have to do is extremely important, and they should stop this partisan bickering and do it; I hope they will, but I'd bet they just push the nomination through and the cynical bickering goes through the campaign--it might even benefit the dems (I'm not sure), but the result is that we may end up with someone who doesn't belong on the Court as a sitting justice. But rather than this spurring people on to do the job they were elected to do, and rather than infuriating the American people that the committee cannot even investigate a serious charge such as this, they just want to engage in partisan finger pointing and the blame game. I'm honestly beginning to seriously lose hope for the future of the republic, when even a task like this cannot be completed.

[Lord Jim]

Unless they have Flake and the other Republicans who wanted the hearing on board with this, (and I doubt that they do) they are now pissing away the golden opportunity that they had.

GOP senator who called for Kavanaugh delay: 'Let's vote' if Ford not at Monday hearing

WASHINGTON – Two Republican senators who earlier this week said they would be hesitant to proceed with a vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until they had a chance to hear from a woman accusing him of sexual assault are strongly encouraging the accuser to appear at a scheduled hearing next week.

Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., both called for a delay on Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, which had been scheduled for Thursday, after Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford came forward publicly as Kavanaugh's accuser in The Washington Post over the weekend.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tried to arrange phone calls with Kavanaugh and Ford to discuss the allegation and eventually agreed to schedule a public hearing on Monday with both parties invited to testify. But Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, has since said that her client wants an FBI investigation into the alleged incident before testifying.

Ford alleges Kavanaugh held her down and tried to remove her clothes at a party when they were both in high school. Kavanaugh has strongly denied the accusation.

Corker said in a tweet early Wednesday that Grassley "took immediate action to ensure both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have the opportunity to be heard, in public or private."

"Republicans extended a hand in good faith," he said. "If we don't hear from both sides on Monday, let's vote."

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who sits on the Judiciary Committee, strongly urged Ford to accept the Senate's invitation to speak on Monday.

"When Dr. Ford cam forward, I said that her voice should be heard and asked the Judiciary Committee to delay its vote on Judge Kavanaugh. It did so," Flake said in a tweet Wednesday. "I now implore Dr. Ford to accept the invitation for Monday in a public or private setting. The committee should hear her voice."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 355272002/

Looks to me like Dr. Ford is probably getting some very bad advice from her attorney...

The Senate Dems had the Senate Republicans in a complete no-win situation, but they seem determined to throw them a lifeline...

I have a gut feeling she will show up on Monday regardless of her prior statements

Well, if she doesn't, any chance of stopping or even substantially delaying this nomination dies, period. The Dems have to hope that Ford's testimony would be sufficiently persuasive to create the public pressure needed to compel further investigation. It's the only shot they have.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Think this through, LJ. "The Dems have to hope that Ford's testimony would be sufficiently persuasive to create the public pressure needed to compel further investigation. It's the only shot they have." Without an investigation, the only testimony Prof Ford can give is that it happened. She has no confirmatory witnesses. Judge Kavanaugh denies that the events, as described, happened; and further denies that he was even at the party. Maybe there are witnesses (so far unfound, but probably not beyond the ability of the FBI to dig up) who can say that they were at a party in Washington in the late 80s at which both Ford and Kavanaugh were present. How can Kavanaugh say he was not at the party? If someone said publicly that I was at a party at which a rape occurred in the back bedroom in 1970s Brighton (where I then lived) I would not be able to say that I was not at that party. I simply do not remember them all - dates, places and hosts. I certainly am not aware of a rape or assault but I am unable to deny that I was present.

So how could Ford, who probably has no more in her memory than approximate location and date AND the exact name of her assailant (you would never forget that even if you try to block out other details) convince senators that this is worth further investigation? All we will have is "This happened." and Judge Kavanaugh will respond: "No it didn't." Senators will split 51-49 on the question of whether she submitted enough evidence to warrant a further investigation by the FBI.

If this were an investigation to determine criminal culpability, FBI would probably say: "We can't help." Probably any prosecutor would say that the chances of a conviction - beyond reasonable doubt, say 95% - is miniscule so there is no point in pressing it. But if that man is going to be a SCOTUS associate, then I want more than a 6% certainty that he did not commit the crime. The goalposts for a criminal prosecution and a lifetime appointment to SC are in different places for a very good reason. I think that if she testifies on Monday with nothing to say except that it happened, the committee will vote to go ahead with the Senate vote and he will be confirmed. She will be vilified like Anita Hill and Trump (of course) will crow that he and Kavanaugh have been proven innocent.

Yes of course the Dems want a delay. This is small payback for Garland and the hypocrisy on display by McConnell et al is breathtaking. Ford is hardly hiding: she is inviting the FBI with all the tools they have, into her life. She would not, I think, do that if nothing happened at that party.

[Big RR]

I agree andy, and I'd add--Jim ,what bad advice is her attorney giving her? My guess is her attorney told her pretty much what Andy just said--her details seem to be somewhat sketchy and she has no evidence to back up her assertions, so what is to be gained in her testifying? Sure, her not showing up may well sink the chances of torpedoing the nomination, but if she does testified she will be attacked as a liar by many. With that I mind, I can see why her attorney may have told her not to testify. This is not the best thing for the democrats, but then her attorney does not represent them.

I still maintain that the committee needs an investigation to do its job, but partisan politics will prevent this.

[RayThom]

And this just in from Lord Dampnut's Queen Ivanka.
“Cut Bait”:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09 ... ump-ivanka

[BoSoxGal]

That scumbag Orrin Hatch who insisted on a nonpartisan, unbiased FBI investigation of the Anita Hill allegations is now insisting Senate staffers can appropriately handle the Ford allegations.

This whole rush to a vote when there is plenty of time to take to allow the FBI to interview Ford, Judge and other potential witnesses is so basely hyper partisan - it stinks! I hope all those millions of women who marched January 21, 2017 and all the younger women who have gained the franchise in the months since come out in force in November and again in 2020 and shove the disgusting words from these sexist pigs back down their throats so hard it chokes them right into unplanned early retirement.

I’m so fucking sick to death of old white sexist racist men - fuck the patriarchy!

[Joe Guy]

I’m so fucking sick to death of old white sexist racist men - fuck the patriarchy!

You're an ageist racist...

[dales]

I'm sure BSG will find Ecuador a paradise.

(in regards to a patriarchal society)

[Scooter]

[ex-khobar Andy]

This is creepy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... e-amy-chua

Basically, according to this story, Yale Law School's Amy Chua (as in Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, which had some celebrity a couple of years ago) funneled law clerks to Kavanaugh for interview, and told them that he hired women with a 'certain look' which appears to translate to, essentially, good looking women. She (Chua) was approvong dress etc for some of these potential clerks. Ugh.

At best creepy, at worst perhaps even predatory.

[Big RR]

I cannot say I am surprised; a lot of professions/professionals seem to try and attract attractive and highly competent women. I used to do a lot of work with economists and economics firms, and from the interns to the women associates and partners, the vast majority were highly qualified, yet looked like they could model. Indeed, in the firms we worked with, I saw few men working in junior positions. While I wouldn't know for certain, I doubt anything unethical was going on (I saw a lot more of that in some law firms that didn't appear to have this sort of recruiting requirements), nor did I doubt the training and talent of any of the women I worked with, but it appeared to be pretty widespread in that area.

[Scooter]

[RayThom]

The above comments in context.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/perso ... ce=twitter
However, an apology or clarification after-the-fact really doesn't make them any better. Ignorance and insensitivity starts before the mouth starts moving.

[Scooter]

[Scooter]

[Joe Guy]

Ageist tweet!