Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Delay and Humiliate
I’ve had enough.
My husband and I have been on vacation for 10 days, so I’ve not been on Ricochet very much, but it’s hard to ignore the hysteria of the mainstream media and the hand-wringing of the right-leaning media. After reading parts of the letter from Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney Saturday at the last 2:30 pm deadline, I think the path forward for Republicans is obvious.
The comment that sent me over the edge was the disrespectful comment of Ford’s attorney to Senator Chuck Grassley saying that the committee’s responses—
. . . are fundamentally inconsistent with the committee’s promise of a fair, impartial investigation into her allegations.
We are disappointed with the leaks and the bullying that have tainted the process. We are hopeful that we can reach agreement on details.
If it wasn’t clear before this response from the attorney, the goal of humiliating Republicans and delaying the confirmation vote is crystal clear. It’s time for the Republicans to take swift and deliberate action. As I see the situation, they have two choices:
Option #1–They should state there will be no further negotiations. In fact, I’d be pleased to see them say that they should never have begun a negotiation process, given the questionable conditions under which these allegations were made. Ms. Ford is invited to come on Wednesday, which she’d already agreed to do. Her lawyer can interview her and Judge Kavanaugh, and Judge Kavanaugh’s lawyer (I believe she’s a woman) can interview both of them as well. Or the Senate Judiciary Committee can interview her in a private session; those are her choices. Then a vote of the committee will be taken. If this is not acceptable and she doesn’t agree to these conditions, she can renege on her agreement to come. A vote will be taken that day or the next.
Option #2–The Republicans can agree to continue on this path which is designed to last beyond the November elections. No matter how accommodating the Republicans are, the Democrats will condemn them. This option has only a disastrous outcome for Republicans, and the Democrats will take the majority in the mid-terms. Kavanaugh will be dumped and a candidate the Democrats favor for the Supreme Court will be nominated and voted in.
With either #1 or #2, the outcomes may work against the Republicans in the elections. My hope is that the Committee proceeds with Option #1 and that we at least get Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. I’m hopeful there are enough people (including women) who are appalled at the actions of Ms. Ford and the Democrats, and will see through their unconscionable plan and vote for a Republican Senate majority. And I recognize that with Kavanaugh on the bench, the Democrats will continue to investigate him if they win the election. He should be consulted to determine if he’s willing to go through that process.
If nothing else, we will see if the Republicans have a backbone.
Your thoughts?
Published in Politics
Keyser has no reason to remember the event because nothing happened to her? Really?
In order to believe Ford’s claims, we have to believe that Keyser has no reason to remember going to a small party that consisted of just five people – two girls (her and Ford) and three guys. (I thought there were supposedly four guys, but oh well) We also have to believe that she has no reason to recall that party even though Ford just disappeared from it, leaving her alone with the three guys. Really? Two of those guys were supposedly so drunk one of them couldn’t even manage to get her clothes off.
So Keyser has no reason to remember a party where she unexpectedly wound up being the only girl with three guys (at least two of whom were very drunk) because the other girl just disappeared into thin air? (insert eyerolling emoji here)
Either that or dedication to the cause. Every one who voted for it in the House knew the likely cost and yet they did it anyway.
I’d sign up for that. Sounds like a light lift.
They get them jobs or make work. It’s really bad in Minnesota, but I know they have a system nationally.
You’re assuming that claiming to not know anything would be the safer thing to do. With some on the Left today, I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption. I think your life has probably been made a living hell just by having your name brought up. So if you’re just looking to play it safe, perhaps the best thing to do would be to claim that you remember being at a party with Ford and Kavanaugh – whether you really remembered such a party or not – and then say you can’t remember any other details about it, just like Ford has done.
This should surprise no one, but it gives us a chance to see if Grassley & Co. have the … uh, testicular fortitude to deal with them:
The smart and only play by my book…tell the truth. You seem to indicate that is just an option. Maybe, but lying would be one darn stupid option to take.
That’s a very good point, @cdor. Grassley has made a good faith effort, and she’s responded with bad faith. I hope you’re right.
I mentioned earlier, @kozak, that the Reps might want to give Kavanaugh an out, in case he has concerns about attacks following his being voted in. He’s the kind of man who’d be concerned about the impact on his family. Then again, I suspect they’ll want him to go forward; at least his wife might.
Good one!
Excellent points, @weeping!
As Rush pointed out: When it’s a 17 year old banger, serious crimes with witnesses and actual evidence aren’t culpable because of neurological immaturity and therefore lack of mens rea.
When it’s a 17 year old who grows up to be a Republican SCOTUS appointee and there are no witnesses, let alone evidence, GUILTY.
Changing the subject, would any attorneys who know this stuff please weigh in on whether this is a valid point?
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1043697136049766401
The full linked tweet contains relevant US Code sections.
Buck Sexton
Right Doctor Ford will never forget anything about that night except what year it was and where this horrific event happened.
LOL.
The Bolsheviks have always had terrific party discipline.
I thought about that, too. Then I thought, ultimately, the smart play IMO is not to say something that will subject you to criminal penalty for lying, especially in a case that has a huge spotlight on it and which Democrats have vowed to investigate once they get the gavel (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse).
Which makes it interesting that her friend of several years did not say in her sworn affidavit via her attorney that she believed Christine Ford, which apparently she had commented at one time.
A side note: in this day and age, does the claim that someone has ‘received threats against his/her life’ add anything to their case? I assume, as a matter of Twitter, that everyone involved in even a semi-public controversy has received anonymous threats, and these threats are at least 99.99% trolling. This appeal to sympathy smacks more of desperation to me than anything else and is somewhat like Godwin’s law now: Anyone who cites anonymous social media threats to support their credibility, loses it.
Exactly: Enforce. Party. Discipline. Like. Democrats.
And Flake and Corker must be told by leadership that they, and any who employ them, will be forever disfavored by the Republican Senate caucus if they betray the party by breaking this fundamental promise, filling the Court with constitutionalists.
That’s taking it one big step further, and I agree completely.
That is my question. All paths are fraught with peril. Which one is safer for a third party? I would be inclined to stay our of it as much as possible.
Just to remind ourselves what time it is, the Supremes have their internal admin meeting for the new term this Monday. They start hearing oral arguments, two per day, 1 October.
Time’s up this week. Full Senate vote before 1 October, or important cases will go 4-4 and very bad things from lower courts will be the law. For which, Mitch and Chuck will be responsible. Check here, to see if you should personally care about a case. Make sure to click the case number, as the names reveal nothing.
If something did actually occur, I suspect Christine Ford was likely very drunk at the time of the incident she alleges meaning her memory is highly impaired, and I seriously doubt Brett Kavanaugh was involved.
Her (and her team’s) activism aside, there’s something off about bringing such a bombshell claim that has no charges filed into the public discourse (which is what writing to a state senator constitutes). It tells me the woman knows she can’t prove her claim, but was willing to try stopping a Supreme Court appointment anyway.
Brett Kavanaugh didn’t become a threat to Christine Ford big enough for her to do something about until he was nominated to the Supreme Court. And that right there is enough for me to call foul on Christine Ford.
I think you can write that off. At the moment I am doubtful that he will be approved. I just do not see the GOP senators holding the line on this.
What is wrong with this analysis? Nothing.
In my opinoin? Whichever option was the honest option in case this thing managed to blow up into a full-scale investigation.
Doesn’t the Chief Justice have discretion over court calendar? If there’s a newly confirmed justice in the wings, it’s possible Roberts may adjust the calendar. I don’t know what all goes into the SCOTUS case calendar and how flexible it is.
For Kavanaugh’s sake and the sake of every Supreme Court nominee to come, I hope you’re wrong about that.
The Senate knew when the term starts, and even knows the cases, at least the ones that matter to their voters and big money funders. The Chief Justice, and the rest of the Court, is hardly likely to reward Senate behavior, by saving them from themselves. It is all on McConnell and Grassley—the blame, or the praise.
“Peaceably assemble” != “disrupt”. Lock them up.
Also, “bused”.