Now it seems that the Kavanaugh accuser will be testifying
This seems to be the strategy:
President Donald Trump’s senior advisor Kellyanne Conway told Fox & Friends that the president supports Ford testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Conway also said that the accusation should not disrupt Kavanaugh’s nomination and the confirmation schedule.
WAJ adds: This appears to be the emerging strategy, let she said/he said play out quickly in public, then declare that it is disputed and the decades of Kavanaugh’s excellent public service weigh in his favor. That said, expect deep digging into the accuser’s past.
Prior to the Roy Moore accusations, as well as the #MeToo movement, accusers usually seem to have thought they had to come up with relatively recent offenses. For example, Anita Hill’s allegations were “only” ten years old, and involved interactions between two adults at work. Although it was basically a “he-said/she-said” story, at least there was a specified time frame in which the two had worked together, and other people in the office who might or might not have witnessed something, as well as the evidence of Hill’s subsequent work history (she followed Thomas to a new job despite his supposedly offensive behavior, which cut into her credibility).
Clarence Thomas was confirmed anyway, and became one of the most reliably conservative justices on the Court. Interestingly enough, in contrast to the way things are today, 11 Democrats voted “yes” on Thomas, even after the Hill hearings. The final vote was 52 to 48, so without those Democrats he never could have been confirmed. You may remember the Hill testimony as “a high-tech lynching,” but at least there was still a modicum of bipartisanship back then. Those days are gone.
In particular, the enormous success of the Roy Moore allegations in destroying Moore’s candidacy made it clear that it was now possible to mount more vague accusations that were much further back in time and therefore even more impossible to check, and that this could be particularly effective. But at least they were about Moore’s alleged behavior as an adult, although with young women or in one case an underage teen.
Now, with the Kavanaugh accuser, the Democrats have gone even further down the road of ancient and vague. If this works to derail his nomination, it will be possible for anyone who ever knew a person, or even lived in the same area, to successfully mount an unanswerable, unprovable, but destructive accusation.
This is very very dangerous. But the Democrats only see the advantages, which to them are great. SCOTUS has been trending liberal since the FDR administration, and a conservative Court would be a disaster for them, because the courts are one of the primary ways the liberal agenda is advanced.
So, why are Republicans suggesting that hearings should be held? One reason, I suppose, is that the Hill hearings ended up in Thomas’ confirmation. Maybe they think history will repeat itself in that regard. But my best guess is that they are in a bind. Once such accusations are made, they open the GOP up to the charge of “you don’t care about women; you’re a bunch of rapist-protectors” if they deny her the right to speak. And if they give her the sort of attention that comes with a public hearing, they run the huge risk of legitimizing her claims and making it easy to see her as a brave hero.
So perhaps it is best to let the testimony happen, but to do it relatively briefly. It is a risky approach, but it’s all risky at this point.
[NOTE: As for the charges themselves, I see many people saying things like “well, there’s only a single accuser,” or “she didn’t even tell a friend for all those years.” The problem with relying too much on the fact that there’s a single accuser or that she didn’t tell girlfriends is that it is fairly easy to dig up a girlfriend who will suddenly say she told her, or a new accuser. People on the left are motivated to do almost anything to stop Kavanaugh. Lying in order to prevent what they think is a great evil (conservative control of SCOTUS) is considered justified, in many people’s minds, for what they think is the greater good.]
I support the President’s strategy here, provided it doesn’t delay the confirmation vote:
Put her under oath and let’s be done with it. She and her lawyer are going to keep spouting off regardless of whether she testifies. At least make her do it under (theoretically, anyway) penalty of perjury. I realize many leftists have no compunction about perjuring themselves if it serves the leftist cause, as this surely does. Nevertheless, this is about the only check available.
Put her under oath, let her ramble for a set period of time, then bring Kavanaugh back to deny it under oath and that’s it; then let’s have the vote and force Flake and Corker to commit.
Now, with the Kavanaugh accuser, the Democrats have gone even further down the road of ancient and vague. If this works to derail his nomination, it will be possible for anyone who ever knew a person, or even lived in the same area, to successfully mount an unanswerable, unprovable, but destructive accusation.
notice we switch to equal language..
like anyone would believe me that some woman molested me…
and that would derail anything..
Now, with the Kavanaugh accuser, the Democrats have gone even further down the road of ancient and vague. If this works to derail his nomination, it will be possible for any WOMAN or GIRL who ever knew a person, or even lived in the same area, to successfully mount an unanswerable, unprovable, but destructive accusation.
Which was the whole point of chapperones and NEVER EVER trust a woman in the past!!!!!!!!!!!
absolute power, and all that…
the ONLY way kavenaugh could have protected himself was to NEVER ever be alone with a woman without a camera, tape, or others..
going to be very hard to work and have private meetings any more
could be why business became majority male
ie. they couldnt throw social handgrenades without repurcussions
There is something wrong with her. Students from 2010-2014 savage her as a professor.
https://news.grabien.com/story-somethings-wrong-her-christine-fords-students-savage-her-rev
She should be asked to identify her closest female friends during the time in question. Then she should be asked whether she shared this experience with them, or at least warned them not to ever be in a compromising situation with these two fellows. I will defer to the women here, but my wife tells me that teenage girls talk to each other constantly about boys and particularly those whom they know. I suspect, consistent with her letter, she will answer no to the question. If that is the case, then I would have a serious problem in believing her.
Notce that no one believes Woody and Soon-Yi
Why?
Soon-Yi is telling finally…
interesting
I suggest joining MGTOW and learning how to stay away and have a better life…
no reason to lose carreer, job, friends and home because you just want to love, be loved and so on… really…
WAY too risky…
so risky, there is a marraige strike, women freezing their eggs and the largest democide of families in modern history (voluntarily)
after all, there is evrything to lose and not much to gain..
think about it… whats the gain?
Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying
The Marriage Strike – Why Men Are Not Rushing to the Altar
they even try to turn it around (cause evrything is mens fault)
Women are Saying “No” to Marriage and Men are Angry, Depressed
but… it really doesnt matter if your not there…
nothing to get angry, upset at, or anything…
Why You Aren’t Married Yet | Psychology Today
Just think…
if Kavenaugh was a MGTOW, he would never have been in this issue!!!
remember when Crystal Magum was molested by a youth that wasnt even there, good thign he had an ATM receipt…
Yes, Stu, girls do talk about boys, and about each other. The Committee should pay for this woman to take the red-eye tonight and testify tomorrow. That way, there’s no time to cook up “she told me about it” stories, or to coordinate those stories as to when and where the alleged party took place.
The desperation of this immoral Democrat effort reveals that they think they are about to lose their power base, the Supreme Court. Destroying a decent man means nothing compared to keeping power.
I’m struggling to think of a question, or line of questions, that Republican committee members could ask that would not be decried as anti-victim, anti-women attacks. Stu’s questions are quite reasonable, sensible, and should be asked, I just don’t see how anyone on the Republican side can do so without opening him or herself to attack.
Who will finally give us the have-you-no-decency moment? Grassley? Hatch? It would be so much more appropriate were it a Democrat — don’t laugh, that’s a true statement! — but I just looked at the Judiciary committee membership and I can’t find a likely candidate among the minority. What a villainous lineup.
Republicans need to fight back with bigger and dirtier smears of Democrats. If they don’t, then the Democrats will smell weakness, and there will be no end to this kind of thing. First, there was the Steele dossier and the FBI conspiracy to impeach Trump. Now there’s the Kavanaugh smear.
So, here’s a concrete suggestion. Make a fake video of Dianne Feinstein and her Chinese chauffeur/spy having sex in the backseat of her limousine. All while DiFi whispers nuclear weapons secrets into his ear. Leak the video to a 1000 internet sires. Use the leak as justification for an investigation. Charge her with treason. Arrest her and jail her without bail. Lesson taught. Repeat as necessary. They want a scorched earth? Burn their house down.
The person to whom they should direct the have-you-no-decency question is Sen. Feinstein.
For the accuser, the line should be that they are very sorry to know that she carries memories of an unpleasant event, but what specifically can she remember about it? Date, location, all the people who were there, how did she get to the event, how did she get home? They should reveal courteous but clear disbelief that the only thing she can remember is the names of a couple of guys she says she never saw again.
Cornflour,
The house is already burnt down.
Keith Ellison’s accuser says today this is so odd that nobody on the Democrats aisle is “believing” her.
Feinstein’s office is “not cooperating” at setting up testimony by the accuser. It’s all about delay.
Mike,
In an investigation, who controls access to the accuser?
Cannot the accuser be sequestered by law enforcement or the Congress without DiFi’s blockage? Is DiFi the legal guardian or something? How does this all work?
Grabien.com is now saying that the reports of students giving her brutal reviews was about a different Christina Ford entirely.
I’m struggling to think of a question, or line of questions, that Republican committee members could ask that would not be decried as anti-victim, anti-women attacks.
steve walsh: It’s a beautiful thing!
@Cornflower:
My rejoinder.
http://redpilljew.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-thought-on-kavanaugh-accuser.html
Sounds like Republicans are taking my line. Sen. Hatch says Ms. Ford is “mistaken.”
Also, Grassley says Feinstein is not cooperating on setting up testimony. If Feinstein won’t cooperate, will Flake refuse to vote for Kavanaugh? This might be another case, besides Feinstein, of have-you-no-decency.
I ask again, how does DiFi have control?
In an investigation, is DiFi the legal guardian or something? Is the accuser under-age? THis is RIDICULOUS
Wow. Scathing DiFi from the San Francisco Chronicle
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-A-disturbing-11th-hour-allegation-13230890.php
Baklava on September 17, 2018 at 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm said:
Wow. Scathing DiFi from the San Francisco Chronicle
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-A-disturbing-11th-hour-allegation-13230890.php
* * *
The feeling I get from SFC is that they are mostly concerned that Feinstein may have busted an opportunity to swing votes away from Kavanaugh because of other negative, and (to them) better documented, considerations.
That is, they think there will be a sympathy backlash for the Judge because of the handling of this accusation.
For Clarence Thomas, Democrats voted for Clarence Thomas and they were in the majority. Democrats seemed to care about their image.
Today, Democrats do NOT care about their image.
Baklava,
I suspect that the S.F. Chronicle strongly favors Feinstein’s rival de Leon.
No way that leftist prop. rag bad mouths a democrat incumbent otherwise.
Feinstein and the Dems (and you can bet that they spent the three months they had the letter in plotting this out) reminds of the great climax to “Trading Places,” when Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy are at the Board of Trade getting ready to short Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche’s attempt to corner the frozen O.J. market. The price goes up and up as more and more frenzied buyers jump in. Murphy keeps saying, “Winthrop, Winthrop” (Ackroyd) and Ackroyd keeps saying, “Not yet, not yet,” until it looks like the price has peaked, then Ackroyd says, “Now!” and they start selling.
I can just see Harris or Booker or Blumenthal or Durbin or one of the other idiots saying, “Diane, Diane” and her saying, “Not yet, not yet,” until she thinks she’s at exactly the right moment to stall the nomination until after the midterms, and then, “Now!”
The best way of burying this BS is to have Ford sitting at the witness table and have one or more of the 65 women who wrote the letter — hopefully there will be at least one who knew her as well as him — also sitting there, and when she finishes her testimony, have the other women who deny her allegation testify. If you recall, the death knell to Anita Hill’s accusations occurred when 14 other women working in Thomas’s office testified that the alleged conduct did not happen.
Kevin De Leon has his own woman problem as his “roomate” has complaints against him.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article192859954.html
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/10/state-senate-staffers-fired-after-reporting-sexual-harassment-attorney-says/
From the Bee, this is an interesting point about why Feinstein is making a mountain out of a molehill to die on.
“In Congress, Feinstein joined a bipartisan group of senators in December to introduce legislation overhauling the reporting process for victims alleging sexual misconduct, called the Congressional Harassment Reform Act. Among other things, it would require members of Congress found liable for sexual harassment to pay settlements out of their own pockets, remove a secrecy clause allowing victims to speak openly, and seek to improve the overall workplace environment in Congress for reporting sexual harassment and discrimination.
“We’re finally experiencing a cultural shift in this country, to a place where sexual abuse and harassment will no longer be tolerated, and Congress needs to lead by example,” Feinstein said in a statement about the proposed legislation.
* * *
I actually could support this bill, but not if it morphs into a system like the kangaroo courts in colleges.
Starting with an extremely dubious allegation and yelling “ya gotta believe the girl” is not a good harbinger.
I was looking around, peering under rocks and behind bushes, for the presumption of innocence for an accused person. Could not find it. The Courts must have legislated it out of existence, since I did not hear of Congress passing such a law to change our legal system so radically. The Socialists/Democrats will find that handy when they next get into power.
“We’re finally experiencing a cultural shift in this country, to a place where sexual abuse and harassment will no longer be tolerated, and Congress needs to lead by example…”
Heh (TM)….
FWIW, here’s “example” #1:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/307831/