With the flakiness (pun intended) of the denunciations now blindingly apparent, I can’t predict what they will do, so I will go read Neo’s new post and cogitate.

Thanks for the clarification on Title IX timing – this is what the back-and-forth of debate is supposed to do.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/09/26/whoa.-christine-ford-julie-swetnick-direct-connection

“Via the Wall Street Journal:

Roughly a decade ago, Ms. Swetnick was involved in a dispute with her former employer, New York Life Insurance Co., over a sexual-harassment complaint she filed, according to people familiar with the matter. Representing her in the complaint was the firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer currently representing Dr. Ford. The company ultimately reached a financial settlement with Ms. Swetnick, the people said.”

Ford went to college three decades ago. When she was in school, Title IX operated mainly around student athletics. It wasn’t till the Supreme Court decided in the 1990s to extend it to sexual harassment that the current state of affairs began. Then it got even worse under Obama in 2011. But my point is that all three accusers went to school under the older rules, not the newer ones. So they don’t have the excuse offered in that quote you gave.

Nor do their lawyers, who know full well what sort of evidence is needed to make a real case, but are betting that real evidence won’t be needed, with the help of their friends the propagandists of the MSM.

common sense
* * *
I laughed at this note (emphasis mine), but I really feel more like crying.

“NOTE: This is the fifth in a series of posts about Kavanaugh this morning.”

https://accordingtohoyt.com/2018/09/26/the-creature-in-the-garden/#comment-558400

“BobtheRegisterredFool | September 26, 2018 at 2:41 pm | Reply
..

Despite my questions yesterday, reversing suffrage is probably not a reasonable response to this.

There is an almost sound argument that Title IX has lead to some unreasonable expectations on the part of the accusers. That they simply had not realized the level of proof that is appropriate to the venue. That in absence of these issues being decided on campus under the current implementation of Title IX, the accusers would have made their accusations and brought substantive evidence in a time frame that matches that of a normal legal proceeding.

Reversing women’s suffrage is the more effective trolling point, but repeal of Title IX is perhaps a more productive discussion. That said, in the current situation such a repeal would also be an ugly mess.”

* * *
Ford may not have realized the difference in rules; would Feinstein & the Congressional Dems be that naive?

Great minds thinking alike and all that. Before I saw your comment about what will happen, I wrote the comment above, and even published it as a post.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/09/22/breaking.-kavanaugh-accusers-third-witnesse-located-testimony-game-changer

It seems like this has gone on forever, but it’s only been 13 days since Feinstein dropped the letter in the hearing room (there is a colloquial idiom involving liquid refreshment serving dishes that might be relevant here).

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/13/dianne-feinstein-refers-letter-on-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-to-feds.html

I disagree somewhat. I don’t think one single Senate vote depends on how she does, or even whether she shows up. The voting will go entirely according to politics and party, and the few possible swing votes will vote on calculations of self-interest. Ford is a MacGuffin at this point, as are the others. She has served her purpose even before she testifies.

Did you see this?