1. Al Franken was punished because Democrats believe it is important for men to be held accountable for sexual assault, no matter how powerful they are

2. Al Franken was punished in order to help Doug Jones, a Democrat, beat his Republican challenger, Roy Moore

3. Al Franken was punished so that Kirsten Gillibrand could establish her populist bona fides in anticipation of her 2020 presidential bid

I don't know if I buy that what Democrats are doing is particularly noble, or how meaningful it is that Democrats punish their own, given how utterly cynical it is. (And note, because I know you're going to misread me here, Reid: to say that is not to say anything at all about the moral value of their intentions compared to those of Republicans.)

The law needs a certain degree of interpretation. That's why we have judges in the first place. But that interpretation needs to operate within a reasonable restriction of what the law actually says and what people have historically taken it to mean. You don't, for example, get to say that the second amendment suddenly means something else because technology has changed, or something like that. If there isn't a respect for president, than the law is totally meaningless.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Really not sure how I feel about this. Surely she must know that some kind of investigation by the FBI would tie up the nomination for months? Tbh this seems somewhat obstructionist.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-senate-hearing.html

Or maybe she's just trying to avoid this:

[quote=The New York Times]
Republicans, clearly hoping to avoid a repeat of the Hill-Thomas scenario, were considering employing a special counsel or staff member to question Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to rush through a hearing without a proper investigation of serious charges.

“She is under no obligation to participate in the Republican efforts to sweep the whole thing under the rug, to continue this nomination on a fast track,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who won her Senate seat in 1992. “It’s basically a railroad job. This is what they did to Anita Hill.”
[/quote]

Republicans want to give her to give her testimony only a few days from now. I suspect that's not enough time for her to prepare.

I don't know what's in it for Republicans to compromise here. They probably have the votes already. They don't really get anything out of allowing her to testify.

idk, maybe they want Kavanaugh to keep them company while they all die in prison?

What is there to investigate? All there is are the claims of a single person 35 years after the fact. Maybe something did happen, maybe it didn't, but the testimony of a single person isn't enough do anything with.

That's a good question. I imagine she is only going that (ridiculous?) route in order to stall the hearings long enough to delay the vote long enough to make her testimony have a real impact. Although if she doesn't plan to testify, then I have no clue what her thinking is here.

Also, legal matters aside, I don't agree that the testimony of a single victim (with additional pieces of evidence like the notes of her psychiatrist) shouldn't sway the opinion of the Senate committee.

I mean, can't they find someone else, who hasn't avoided apologizing for likely rapey behavior in his past? Doesn't that say something about his character?

I'm not sure I find much of Democrats' response to Kavanaugh's testimony very reasonable. Many seem to being with the assumption that he did do it, and think he's at fault for not being more diplomatic and apologetic in his denial, and that he should have said something like, "if I did do this, I'm sorry for any pain that I might have caused". Like, maybe he didn't apologize because he didn't do it, and apologizing would be lend credence to the view that he did it, and doesn't want to incriminate himself. It's gotten to a point that people are expressing bewilderment about the denial, but the only reason why it's confusing to them is because he's assuming that Kavanaugh is lying.

And to be sure, I'm not saying that he isn't lying. I just don't think that his denial is as incoherent or as confusing as a lot of people claim. I also don't think that the common conservative defense which says "Kavanaugh didn't do it, but if he did do it, it wouldn't be such a big deal because X" is incoherent. Like, it's a really bad defense, because it entails defending someone for attempted rape or sexual assault, but it's not incoherent, which some people claim it is (they claim that it's incoherent to defend K. in this way, because it seems to simultaneously acknowledge that he did do it while denying that he did). I think we should all be able to recognize hypotheticals at this point.

Just to give my remarks a little more context, I'm largely responding to this week's episode of the Weeds podcast.

I think this is a pretty cut and dry situation, as far as I see it: Ford ought to testify. Perhaps the Senate isn't giving her enough time to do so effectively, but this "we should have the FBI investigate" just reeks of obstructionism. I don't think we'll be able to ascertain whether or not Kavanaugh actually even committed what she's accusing him of, so her testimony would only serve as additional information for the consideration of the Senate.

If he did do it, in a perfect world, I think that offering an apology should help, not hurt, his chances in being confirmed. Whereas actually, he can only lose by wavering in maintaining his innocence, and he already has enough support from Republicans to be confirmed anyway.

Actually:



So it only takes a few days for the FBI to investigate. I say go ahead and do the investigation first.

I heard someone say that the Anita Hill case fell under the FBI's jurisdiction because she was a federal employee and her allegations concerned things that happened to her while at work, but that there's no reason why Kavanaugh's alleged actions would fall under federal jurisdiction. No idea if that's accurate.

Can the FBI investigate an alleged crime that has passed the time frame for statute of limitations? If only for informational purposes? Or is that outside the scope of the FBI's mission?

I guess the White House has to order it, and won't, because the FBI "doesn't feel like it".

[quote=NBC News]
President Donald Trump has said the FBI doesn't want to investigate Christine Blasey Ford's assertion that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her, and that it's "not what they do."

In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to request it. Neither does the Senate.
[/quote]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/can-fbi-investigate-allegation-against-brett-kavanaugh-n911036

Under these circumstances, I say Ford should not testify. Let the Republicans suffer their own self-inflicted wound (however minor).

It's not a self-inflicted wound. It's a judge with a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court! It's a big win for the Republicans, and from a Republican standpoint, any downside has very little consequence, especially when compared to the upside (having a majority conservative Supreme Court). Kavanaugh is only accountable to the public up until the point that he is confirmed. After that, the only accountability that he will have to the people is the potential to be impeached, which obviously isn't going to happen.

I was already assuming Kavanaugh would be appointed. The wound is the lost opportunity to assuage (voter) suspicion that the Republican party is sweeping under the rug the concerns of a potential sexual assault victim, but this admittedly is looking more like a scratch, given all that Republican voters already accept without batting an eye.

I mean, at the end of the day, right-leaning voters won't care about one single (potential) sexual assault victim (from an alleged incident in the distant past); instead, they'll probably be pissed off for the rest of their lives about having to change health insurance under Obamacare, etc.

You heard it here first, folks: right-wing voters don’t care about sexual assault victims.

They'd care if it was politically expedient for them to care (which I suppose means they don't really care). You can imagine what they'd be saying if the shoe was on the other foot.

I don't think it can really be chalked up to bad faith, though. There's genuine ambiguity here, and there are many reasons a conservative can give to explain away the allegations without going into self-delusion. If one of your "priors" is that you are sympathetic to Kavanaugh and you want to see him confirmed, reasonable doubt can take you pretty far. (For example, doubting that Ford's memories are accurate after all these years, or pointing out the political opportunism of Democrats as something that casts suspicion on the story, and so on.)

Pretty hypocritical for conservatives to be writing things like this at a time when Donald Trump is the president!



haha, what?



hmm...

I mean... I'd consider immediately jumping to questioning her and gaslighting to be in pretty bad faith.

I guess if you stretch the meaning of bad faith to the point of meaninglessness, then maybe.

I think for conservatives to be acting in bad faith when they question her account, the following would have to be the case:

1. They agree with most on the left that her accusations are credible. That is, they believe in their "heart of hearts" that the allegations are accurate.
2. They recognize that its a political disadvantage for her accusations to be reliable
3. Therefore, they disingenuously attack her, effectively lying, being aware that they are playing fast and loose with the truth for political purposes

I don't think we need to assume that this double consciousness is happening. I think we can assume that they're actually genuine in their belief that K is innocent, and that the accusations are non-credible. They're not acting in bad faith. It's just that they may be wrong.

I think many accusations of bad faith stem from the fact that people assume that the other side recognizes the same facts as true as your side, but lies about it because the facts are politically disadvantageous. The accusations don't take into account that political opponents might just be wrong about the facts, or have different facts. They're being genuine when they argue, but they information they have and their loyalties are leading them to different conclusions than your information and loyalties lead you.

On the other hand Republicans lie casually and constantly, about everything from their own motivations to matters of record, so it’s probably safe to assume they’re lying about their motivations here too.

After all, they solicited his female high school classmates to pledge support well before any of this came out. Somehow they just “knew” there’d be a high school era rape allegation. I wonder how? Because Kavanaugh told the GOP he did it, maybe??

(Please note that I distinguish between Republicans and Republican voters. Republicans are the ones who set or influence policy. Republican voters are the people Republicans trust so much that they’ve gerrymandered the **** out of America instead of recruiting more.)

From a purely factual point of view (I'm trying not to be partisan) the whole thing is fishy. I was not a detective, though I did participate in several investigations and had to testify in court numerous times. This may all sound a bit tinfoil hat on my part, but here are my thoughts nonetheless.

1. One of them must be lying, or at least, Dr. Ford is mistaken about the identity of her attacker(s).
2. Feinstein has been sitting on this for months, but waits until the vote is incipient. It was not raised during the contentious hearings as would be expected.
3. Feinstein also has some doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
4. Refusing to testify is highly suspicious. The initial victim statement is the roadmap for the investigation and tells investigators where to go. Even if she is not willing to testify before the senate, a statement has to be given for any investigation to proceed. It's just how an investigation works.
5. She cannot name a date, time, or place for the event, other than "it was summertime," but school is out in summertime.
6. It's been so long, the statute of limitations has likely been exhausted (I haven't looked up the specific rules for that locale, so this may not be correct), so there would be no prosecution.
7. There will be no physical evidence due to the amount of time that has passed, and the only witness is apparently disinclined to testify.
8. The notes her therapist provided do not match her account of the story.
9. She has confessed to underage drinking at the time of the incident, making any testimony she may give unreliable. She cannot remember how she got to or left the party.

I can't find any sources that agree with Joncy that the Kavanaugh support letter came out before the accusatory letter was written in July, only that it came out very shortly after the accusatory letter became widespread in mid-Sept.

You won't find a law enforcement agency on earth that would investigate this claim. From a purely strategic point of view, this is a godsend for Democrats looking to derail the already shaky confirmation. In the MeToo era, an allegation (true or not) is a death sentence. An impossible to disprove allegation is even better.

I have a soft spot in my heart for victims of sexual crimes. My father is the biological result of a sexual crime, and several of my family have been victims. Some of the worst days of my life were spent with victims and their families after a crime. I know how traumatic it is. That said, I also believe in due process. I hope the truth comes out and she gets whatever justice she's due. I hope it doesn't become a big partisan mess and that proper order is followed, and no one omits or alters any steps for political purposes.

I hate when my political opponents care about morality. It's so inconvenient. Caring about morality is a cheap political ploy, I tell you.

^ not directed at anyone here btw. Just some of the stuff I have seen online.

In a democracy, experience has shown that (on the web at least) it's best not to entertain the arguments of people whose minds are already made up, even if it's about something good or true.

"Morality", all too often, seems to me to amount to little more than emotionally held points of view, and are often quite arbitrary. To wit, homosexuality has been called "immoral" so many times in history, but I still don't know what that would even mean.

So it's not hard to see that arguing with somebody about beliefs grounded in emotion will simply lead to further emotion (e.g., Reid's frustration).

I didn't know you were such a relativist

This thread needs Mort-Hog

This thread still needs to be killed.

Or the forum needs a restructuring.