"In a real hearing and a real investigation, other witnesses would be called, including witnesses who could corroborate, witnesses who could explain the context of the experiences of Dr. Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh during that period in their lives, as well as experts on sexual harassment and sexual assault."I think Hill is using the idea of corroboration very broadly, since there are no other witnesses for the incident Blasey alleges nor are there witnesses to her contemporaneous hearsay about the incident. Hill is, I think, talking about witnesses who heard Blasey tell her story after Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court prospect, decades later, as well as general experts on how to understand and interpret the behavior and testimony of those who tell of sexual victimization.
Hill goes on to reject the Senate as the investigator. The Senate, she says, is not a "neutral body." And, speaking of her own experience before the Senate Judiciary Committee, there is "an inherent power imbalance."
The Senate has the constitutional role to decide whether to confirm the nominee. I resist the idea that it "cannot be fair." It must be fair, and if it is not, it still makes the decision. It makes a lot of decisions, and many of them are unfair or believed to be unfair. Yell and scream about that. I guess that's what people, including Hill, are doing. The Senators are responding to the political pressure, and whatever they do, they'll be criticized. Delay or don't delay. Vote yes or no. And there are lots of elections in 6 weeks, so we the people who think the Senate is unfair/fair will have our say.
NOTE: This is the fourth in a series of posts about Kavanaugh this morning. Comments on this post should only be about this article. Here's my post warning you that a series of posts is forthcoming. If you want to draw attention to other articles, do so in the comments section for that post, not this one.
Posts
103 comments:
Anita makes her living off this stuff. She was an awful law professor and this is all she has left.
Who said it would be fair?
The Senate’s role to advise and consent is obviously unconstitutional too. Like everything else that Democrats don’t like at any given moment.
I told you. Battlespace prep. She's either not going to show up, or if she does, will get eaten alive.
It must be fair...
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Hill is, I think, talking about witnesses who heard Blasey tell her story after Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court prospect, decades later, as well as general experts on how to understand and interpret the behavior and testimony of those who tell of sexual victimization.
That's not what a "witness" is though. If I tell you a story, you don't then become a "witness" to my story.
Is there ANY Democrat argument that doesn't boil down to changing the rule just because they don't want to follow protocol?
I remember in high school, the condition of our textbooks was recorded, with the classification Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor.
Based on this classification, for the Senate, Fair would be a stretch goal.
"In a real hearing and a real investigation, other witnesses would be called, including witnesses who could corroborate, witnesses who could explain the context of the experiences of Dr. Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh during that period in their lives, as well as experts on sexual harassment and sexual assault."
So Ms. Hill wants ALL the trappings of an actual court trial, without the tiresome necessity of lodging an actionable criminal complaint with the police or having to meet the corresponding burden of proof.
Got it. Next.
It isn't fair if the distraught woman is not believed by everyone.
There's an inherent power imbalance when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee? And there's not when a person is questioned by the FBI, who can allege you committed a felony by not being truthful? I suppose the only neutral body that would satisfy Professor Hill is one of the university star chambers that assess sexual harassment and assault claims with a complete absence of due process.
Hill didn't seem to be yelling and screaming to me. Odd way of putting it for AA.
Anita Hill, "an inherent power imbalance."
Dear Anita: The Senate has the power to confirm SCOTUS nominees. That power is right in the constitution. If a person lies under oath at a Senate hearing (like you did), that person can go to jail (like you should have). Any judge, jury or administrative proceeding has an inherent power imbalance over the parties.
Now I can see why this woman was drummed out of teaching the law. Not that bright. And a political hack.
I think Hill's points are undeniable. The Senate is a clown car in which anything resembling a fair hearing -- for either party -- is an impossibility.
I'm in the Jonah Goldberg camp. As of now, there are more leads the FBI could follow and more people the FBI could ask to give statements. A full array of statements, no matter how inconclusive, is a better outcome for a can-we-ever-know-what-happened perspective that whatever the Senate will give us.
But I don't care much about November when many people here do. And the Senators really really really care about November.
Distraught is the natural condition of women. The law isn't there to relieve it.
I assume everyone on the left agrees with Joe Biden here: he stated back when the Hill hearings were going on that an FBI investigation would be "pointless."
So let's apply another Biden rule--who can possibly complain if we are doing what Joe Biden told us to, right?
But I don't care much about November when many people here do. And the Senators really really really care about November.
That's what this is all about. If you haven't figured that out, you are not paying attention or you are trolling.
One thing that is getting lost in all the Collins-Flake-Murkowski-Corker discussion is that there are at least three Dems who would LOVE IT if there were no vote on this before the election. Manchin, Heitcamp and Donnelly do not want to go on record either way, because they are going to get killed by one side or the other if there is a vote. So if we drag in Anita Hill to assert her moral authority (heh) in favor of a different, delaying process, I smell a rat.
I think Ford is going to show up, but I wonder if the red-state three will. They are undoubtedly wondering if they can pair with three of the four GOP fence-sitters, and none of them vote.
Never forget, this is a no-win vote for three incumbent Democrats.
Let's vote.
Ann said... The Senators are responding to the political pressure, and whatever they do, they'll be criticized.
Indeed. Pressure from the democrats and their corporate media elites. Like George Clintonopolis - who has ooodles of credibility on the subject of sexual abuse against women.
Oh good. Anita "My Pants Are On Fire" Hill weighs in.
"witnesses who heard Blasey tell her story after Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court prospect"
Is it a humblebrag to let it drop to your friends that this prominent man on his way to fame and power once put the moves on you? And all the better that it was unpleasant because Republican?
I hear her. It's like trusting scientists to sniff out fraud - they're not qualified (Michael K's answers on the subject, here, have been a prime examples.) Magicians catch fraudsters.
Politicians in a partisan battle ain't gonna determine anything.
By the way, I think Collins is really mad a DiFi and is a probable yes unless something changes regarding Kavanaugh.
Corroboration = context = feelings
Just take the vote.
But I don’t care much about November when many people here do.
What’s the sky like in your world? In this world the Senate is at stake as well as the SCOTUS. We can’t let red state Democrats off the hook with a six year reprieve to vote the opposite of what the voters would want.
There's another one.
My understanding is that CBF still hasn't sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee chairman detailing her allegations. And Feinstein refuses to share the full version of the letter CBF sent to Eshoo and which Eshoo shared with Feinstein.
So yeah, Hill is right that it can't be fair, but not for the reasons Hill describes.
Red state dems will vote no.
That's what this is all for - to give them cover.
I think Hill is using the idea of corroboration very broadly...
Ya think?
And yet, she somehow found it possible (or expedient) to defend Bill Clinton against accusations of sexual assault.
Funny how that works.
Michael K said...
That's what this is all about. If you haven't figured that out, you are not paying attention or you are trolling.
I'm pointing to a separation of concerns. You can get closer to the truth or closer to a vote. Those two concerns don't align.
The hearings are to help inform the Senate. If the Senate is not an appropriate body to be holding hearings, then it seems to me the only alternative is not to have hearings at all.
Who else did Ms. Hill have in mind?
Anita lover that won't drive me crazy
Anita lover that won't drive me crazy
Anita lover that won't drive me crazy
Some girl that knows the meaning of
Hey hit the highway
John Mellencamp, "I Need a Lover" (1979)
You can get closer to the truth or closer to a vote
That was for July. This is a late hit with no intention of seeking truth.
If I wrote a blog, there'd be a "fairness bullshit" tag along the lines of Althouse's "civility bullshit" tag. I would be hard pressed to think of an instance, either personal or public, where the person invoking the word "fair" truly sought fairness rather than advantage.
Anita Hill gets another 6-mo high-income opportunity. What's not to like?
"There's another one."
So, she went to approximately ten house parties between 1981-1983.
Her instance of rape happened in approximately 1982. (I'm sorry, but I would sincerely think that if you were the victim of a gang-rape, there would be nothing approximate about your recollection)
So, after being gang-raped, she continued to attend the type of parties at which she was raped.
And, prior to being gang-raped, she knew of the supposed practice at these parties and still chose not only to attend, but to imbibe.
Sounds super legit to me.
I don't think Ford's going to show up tomorrow. This will set the table for the Dems to ask for a postponement so that the FBI can "investigate" what she and Ramirez and whoever else has been talking to the press lately have alleged. The objective is delay, delay, delay. Don't let them get away with it.
If #3 was raped - why didn't she tell someone?
Like the police?
Where have you been?
The newest "victim" Julie Swetnick, to her credit, makes a written statement under oath, so she at least gets into the game (despite the obvious late hit.)
Her allegation (spiked punch date rape) is serious, but she doesn't say BK did it. She says he was at the party.
Again, another smear by innuendo and association.
That's how they roll.
Could it be that #3 has appeared just now with a juiced up version of #1's story because #1 is not going to appear?
Seriously, where is CBF? In all past stories of this type, the press literally camps outside the principals location and tracks them everywhere they go. But I've heard nothing.
"Politicians in a partisan battle ain't gonna determine anything."
That is quite true.
The voters will determine if the politicians acted in ways that they desire.
This is not a court of law, but has legal trappings to give it a semblance of fairness and justice.
Democrats want to destroy that semblance because ... women have been molested in the past.
American voters will have to decide if they want a semblance of fairness and justice or a Stalinesque show trial.
Somebody should mention that 4-Chan (yesterday) claimed that they were trolling Michael Avenatti and that the woman's (#3) story is entirely fabricated, using burner phones. Michael Avenatti denies that.
Return of the Spinster.
The last 27 years confirm that Thomas is a good guy and Hill is a lying opportunist.
The last 36 years confirm that Brett is a good guy and Ford is a lying lunatic opportunist.
What “neutral body” does Anita Hill want. The FBI has already looked at Ford’s letter to Feinstein and said that there is nothing to investigate.
But I think what Hill wants is an unneutral body that is biased in the direction she wants it to be biased,
As if anyone credits anything that Hill has to say about anything. She has not covered herself with glory in the intervening 26 years.
And here comes Lynch with a link that states Kavanaugh was at a party where something happened but it wasn't him that did it.
And from whom? From a whore's lawyer. A guy who stiffed people for ten million bucks. Anita Hill, what a joke. Liar then. liar now.
The so-called testimony of the corroborating witnesses comes to this: she told me she could sprout wings and fly. That's what she told me, not that she could actually sprout wings and fly.
It's difficult to imagine that any trauma Julie Swetnick suffered in the early 1980's was worse than the experience of having to be alone in a room with the loathsome Michael Avenatti.
So... does Hill REALLY want the three witnesses who say Ford is wrong to be called?
We can't put what Kavanaugh and Ford experienced into context because, as far as we have evidence wise, Ford is -- charitably -- misremembering the event. Likely, she didn't expect every last witness she named to say she was wrong, especially not her long time friend.
If Hill *really* wants experts called, why not also experts on how reliable witness testimony is? Why not call in a man who was wrongly convicted of rape by the victim misidentifying him? Or is that not the context we want?
The situations of the two people aren't symmetrical- one is an accuser, the other is the defendant. To expect to make such an accusation and not get questioned hard about it is true chutzpah. People telling the truth don't generally worry about answering questions about that truth, even deeply probing and aggressive ones.
If you don’t go to the cops, it didn’t happen.
Didn't Senator Feinstein pass Ford's letter to the FBI? Isn't the fact they simply appended it to the information they gave to the White House an indication of their view of its significance? In the Hill vs Thomas case, didn't that particular issue fall under FBI scrutiny because it was within FBI jurisdiction due to the employment status of the people involved? Oh, and wasn't the fact it was (then) relatively recent a factor?
Anita Hill got a lifetime appointment as a law professor out of her testimony, but it has rather turned to ashes for her, and she is bitter.
If anyone knows how to do unfairness at a Senate hearing it’s Anita Hill.
Anyone — anyone, be it a starlet or a judicial clerk or a graduate student — who goes along with uncomfortable behavior in the interest of advancing their career loses the right to be taken seriously when they complain about it later. Simple rule.
And here is where Kavanaugh has screwed up fatally. Not to say that he is guilty of anything charged by these three women, but his public statements paint him into an untenable corner. He has stated that he never knew anything about Justice Kozinski’s grotesque behavior with his female colleagues, a claim that seems utterly unbelievable. He has stated he never blacked out drinking, which seems unlikely based on nothing more than his yearbook page, which he wrote. He has stated that he remained a virgin throughout college.
Who is coaching him?
Getting on to the Supreme Court is not a civil right. This is a job interview. The Democrats’ dirty tricks are winning, politically. The rest is political calculation, not a trial. And the political calculation needs to be to win. Pull the nomination, nominate someone bulletproof, then remain loyal to Kavanaugh as you turn over every stone to get to the truth and help the public understand how dirty the Democrats have been. Win by fighting smart.
For some reason, the US Navy insisted that all of us in the program I was in (NESEP) take one Military Law class. This was at the University of Washington in 1975. For the first two weeks of the class, all of us kept bringing up 'fair' when taking about the test cases we were discussing. The law professor teaching the class was very understanding at our ignorance, and took the time to explain repeatedly that 'Justice is the application of existing law tempered with mercy'. You will notice there is no mention of 'fair'. It only took two weeks for us to get the message.
Every time I hear some person say the process has to be 'fair', I remember that class and the professor's explanation. If you want to know what 'fair' is - it just means treating everybody the same. So if you treat everybody like a lying crap weasel, that is 'fair'. 'Fair' is useless when trying to meet out justice. JMVHO.
You know that in a lot of jurisdictions, it is actually illegal to withhold a job from someone because they were accused (but not convicted) of a crime, right? Do we really want to use the "it's a job interview!" standard. Because in a job interview, HR would have a heart attack with the way Kavanaugh has been treated.
Why is it unbelievable a sleazeball hid his deviant behavior from his choir boy assistant?
The Senate is making a political decision, not a criminal one. It's fair enough for those purposes.
The biggest mistake relative to “fairness” was to allow the 1st accuser to delay the process. If the 1st one can delay it, then why not the 2nd or 3rd? We have gone from an allegation of attempted molestation to allegations of routine gang rapes. It should have been nipped in the bud at the first one. But in 2018, despite decades of so-called empowerment, one woman’s claim of fragility must derail the United States Senate. This is beyond farce.
"The Senators are responding to the political pressure"
No, they are not independent actors. Or they are on a very short leash.
Most people in that sort of position are owned, they occupy it because they have come to an understanding or a network of understandings with their sponsors. Few of the public faces in politics are the real players themselves, no more so than the talking heads on TV.
It helps to come from a Gemeinschaft society (community, informal, relationship based) to see this. The Gesellschaft (impersonal, rule-based) assumptions are useful ideals, if they can be maintained, but the default and "true" substrate is that Gemeinschaft.
"And here is where Kavanaugh has screwed up fatally. Not to say that he is guilty of anything charged by these three women, but his public statements paint him into an untenable corner. He has stated that he never knew anything about Justice Kozinski’s grotesque behavior with his female colleagues, a claim that seems utterly unbelievable. He has stated he never blacked out drinking, which seems unlikely based on nothing more than his yearbook page, which he wrote. He has stated that he remained a virgin throughout college.
Who is coaching him? "
With all due respect Tina, I wonder whether Truth plays any role in your analysis.
Who gives a shit about what Anita Hill thinks about anything anyway?
gahrie said...
"Who gives a shit about what Anita Hill thinks about anything anyway?"
Just horrible people thinking others aren't credible. That's really funny. They don't care how they look - until they need others.
The Republicans damage even their best moves - by merely being themselves.
Shut the fuck up, Crack. And I mean that with all respect. Your performance art doesn't belong here.
it isn't fair...to Kavanaugh. Ford has zero fucking evidence. Zero documents. Zero witnesses who she claims corroborate her accusation back her up. She clearly has an ax to grind against Kavanaugh, but no evidence that passes the smell test and regardless of what she says tomorrow, her allegations still won't be credible or corroborated. The Senate should stop wasting everyone's time with this bullshit and confirm him now!
Why did a 19 year old Julie Swetnick, 2 years older than Kavanaugh, go to 10 gang bang cult house parties? She kept going back.
Okay, Crack, so your answer is, "Just horrible people ..." give a shit what Hill thinks about anything anyway. Do you include yourself in that group?
Given the Dems propensity for public circuses, it's time for the R's to make all these hearings private.
THEN--The FBI/CIA/Fusion GPS took 4-Chan trolling stories about Trump paying Russian hooker to piss on a hotel bed used by Obama and used them in a dossier that got then FISA warrants.
NOW--Michael Avenatti takes 4-Chan trolling stories about a Bang Gang and finds a stooge to attach her name to them to create an affidavit.
4-Chan runs the modern world.
When I hear about a hearing with, 'experts on sexual assault and sexual harassment' it makes me think of a trial of a black man and someone calling in an expert phrenologist to pontificate about how the defendant has a very, very criminally shaped head.
Anita must have failed Evidence 101. You know? The part where they tell you about hearsay? If Anita finds 10,000 people who heard somebody say (yesterday, not just 30 years ago) that X occurred? NONE of those 10,000 people is a corroborating witness. They're just a convenient audience.
People really don't have a good grip on evidence, and. how Information diffuses across a gradient comprised of error, bias and time. The stuff you hear spouted today by self-important and carefully-trolled "witnesses" who were in the general vicinity of "something, maybe" three decades ago? Are you kidding me?
The objective is delay, delay, delay. Don't let them get away with it.
Maybe all the democrats will leave the capitol and go to a Twin Peaks in Rockford, IL to further strategize just like Wisconsin democrats did.... That's probably good for a day or two, right?
Why not investigate the accusation of running a series of gang rapes? Why ignore the most serious allegations?
We all know why, I just want to hear it said.
There are witnesses who contradict Ford’s account(s) thereby corroborating Kavanaugh. They should be called. Then bring on Ford’s hearsay peddlers.
BTW, I don’t believe that statements by an accuser during the last decade of a three decade old claim rebut the “recent contrivance” claim by the defense. But obviously crap peddlers like Hill are not interested in evidence.
Republicans need to just throw in the towel instead of faking it with turds like Flake, Corker, Collins, Murkowski and Sasse in the wings. It really is over.
Regardless, I agree with I Callahan at 10:26: Ford will either back out or get eaten alive unless the Dems can forestall any questions by Repubs or their lawyer.
Dems, meanwhile, are prepared with variations on: “How did you feel?”
I'm a bit behind it seems. Is it 'gang-rape' now?
The big "oops" that's all over my twitter feed--Ms. Swetnick, as an adult, made a habit of attending high school sex parties and witnessed (sort of) numerous rapes without saying or doing anything. And continued to attend the parties.
"-Ms. Swetnick, as an adult, made a habit of attending high school sex parties and witnessed (sort of) numerous rapes without saying or doing anything."
So self-declared being complicit in the rape of minors. What is the statute of limitations on that?
Everyone keeps confusing this dog and pony show before the bloviating Senators as if it is an actual trial.
There is not going to be any Perry Mason moment. There is NO evidence to be presented. Memories are not evidence. There isn't a judge or a jury. There isn't anything "fair" about this whole steaming pile in the first place.
They need to hear her speak. Hear Kavanaugh speak to that issue. Then vote to send or not send the nominee to the rest of Congress.
Get the EFF on with it.
"I'm a bit behind it seems. Is it 'gang-rape' now?"
Kavanaugh is a one-man rape gang.
They can tie up most of the unsolved sex crimes in this nation by just throwing the bastard in jail. Justice for all!
Anita Hill would seem to have an uphill battle. After all, if she'd been Believed then Thomas would not have served on the Supreme Court, yet there's no evidence at all that he did so less than honorably.
The only reason you'd want to go back in time and somehow engineer a future in which Thomas was not confirmed would be because you'd have preferred someone more Liberal: that is, your problem with him is political, and not the result of his alleged boorish behavior.
Does her problem remain "I said, hee put a pubic hair on my Coke!" or is it what it has always been, "I don't like that man's politics!"? And therefore BAMN.
I was in the hospital for two weeks in September 1991 (almost miscarried my 21 wk old twins so was on complete bed rest) during the entire Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill saga. I couldn't even sit up to read so TV was my only "entertainment".
Anita Hill was not a good witness. She seemed to be most outraged by Thomas talking about a pubic hair on a Coke can. When asked why she tried to follow Thomas as he worked his way up the career ladder (this was AFTER she turned down a couple of possible - kinda hazy - "dates"), she didn't have a good answer. Her handlers immediately claimed that because of the inherent power differences that women will follow their harassers because. . . .well, that never made much sense either.
And what I really remember is that in the wee hours of the night (East Coast), the committee finally heard from about 8 (I think there were 12 who wanted to testify) co-workers of Thomas and Hill - most (all?) African American, ALL supportive of Thomas and they all but called Hill a lying, incompetent attorney.
Based on testimony/evidence of co-workers, Anita Hill LIED about Thomas - but she's held up as some sort of saint because the myth-makers were and still are in charge. They got away with it once - before internet. It won't happen again.
Darrell said...
"Shut the fuck up, Crack. And I mean that with all respect. Your performance art doesn't belong here."
Oh, should I take this inevitable crowning of the Pure White Judge as seriously as you?
Give me a break. This is theatre. My performance art belongs here more than anywhere else.
At least, with it, the outcome isn't preordained.
Doug said...
"Okay, Crack, so your answer is, "Just horrible people ..." give a shit what Hill thinks about anything anyway. Do you include yourself in that group?"
I care what Dr. Hill has to say. I don't always agree with her, but, remember: I'm not the ideologue here. You guys are offended - I'm entertained because I know you're all corrupt. You don't care about women, or rape, or justice, or the truth - you prove it, and say it, every day.
You're fucked.
I'm willing to wait until tomorrow to make my judgement on what's going on - beyond a display of white people, on both sides of the political line, being stupid and corrupt, as usual.
Just like with race.
If that's "crazy" to y'all, then so be it.
Yes, Crack, it's crazy.
At least, with it, the outcome isn't preordained.
Yeah. No talk about eating babies in the Super Dome, yet.
Senate Democrats had Ford's story for weeks before it came out. There are three possibilities:
1) They planned to leak the story when it did leak out;
2) They planned to leak the story even later; or
3) They planned on keeping it secret and never disclosing it.
In all of these scenarios, they are essentially estopped from complaining that the majority is being unfair by not delaying the vote even further.
When Hill talks about context, I think she means "let's talk about the fact that teenage boys sometimes get drunk and sexually abuse girls." Indeed they do. We could talk about all the women who've been victimized by males, or maybe just by upper-middle-class white males. But the issue is whether Brett Kavanagh committed sexual assault as a teenager, as described by Christine Blasey Ford, yet maintained a reputation as a nice, woman-respecting guy then and for the rest of his life.
If I still worked for mainstream media, I'd interview experts on memory: Is it possible for people to convince themselves they remember things that didn't happen? What are the circumstances in which false memories are formed? How do we judge the reliability of a 35-year-old memory?
Crack is just upset that his people fell 50,000 years behind in evolution.
I haven't heard any suggestion that if Ford could come up with any witnesses, the Committee would ignore them.
Her problem is she has no witnesses, including non-witnesses whe talked to contemporaneously, which would not be witness but would be something. She didn't even tell anybody about it for, like 20 years.
Crack... the Addiction Network, the call is free, the referral is free.
SENATE HEARING.. SENATE RULES.. As your leader Barry sez "we won".
Get the agent Feinstein "passed the letter" to under oath.
Only slightly off topic. Now that Ford has released her sworn statement, we see why the accuser must testify first.
Ford now remembers another "detail" that hasn't come up before. Not the time or place or anything that might help, but it was an "ad hoc" party so it wouldn't show up in Kavanaugh's schedule book. I can just see her talking to her lawyers.
Lawyers, "We're in trouble now, that nerd Kavanaugh keep his schedule books from high school. Is there anything we can say to counter that?"
Ford, "Oh, I just remembered it wasn't a planned party - I just found out about it minutes before it started!"
Lawyers, "Yeh! Let's go with that!"
This confirmation hearing has become a travesty solely because of democrat's handling of this. They had months and a procedure to deal with this but they planned to drop this shit bomb at the last minute.
Althouse doesn't seem to realize how much damage it's doing to feminism by subordinating it and turning it into the Democratic Party's dirty scorched-earth tactics. Duke Lacrosse hurt it, Jackie in Rolling Stone wounded it, for me this has killed it. You get no support without very hard evidence - no more he said-she said. The earlier events were somewhat local issues that bubbled up. This has become a national issue to big to ignore. Look at your non-liberal kool-aid commentors. They are fed up and angry.
I Callahan said...
"Yes, Crack, it's crazy."
Funny, I just heard the president say it, so,....
Why not investigate the accusation of running a series of gang rapes? Why ignore the most serious allegations?
We all know why, I just want to hear it said.
And let's say they do that investigation and find no evidence that he was involved in anything. And so we vote, yes? But what if right before the vote someone else comes forward with another allegation? Do you stop once again and do another investigation? In other words, when does this process end? At what point do you say "enough is enough"? Or do you give a blank check to anyone who wishes to put forward an allegation because as long as you can't PROVE they're wrong (and good luck trying to prove a negative), you have to investigate, right?
To avoid that absurd situation is why we have rules of evidence of order. It's why we limit the time allowed for questions and review. The Dems are the ones who sat on this until the very last minute and they did so for political reasons. They could have brought this issue up months ago, but that would not serve their political purposes. This has nothing to do with justice or truth. And it's their actions that created this farce --- an inevitable farce that occurs when people throw out basic rules of fairness and evidence for their own political schemes.
And remember, Kavanaugh has already had numerous background checks and investigations into his life and his character. It's not as if he's a blank slate or unknown quantity.
That's not what a "witness" is though. If I tell you a story, you don't then become a "witness" to my story
If it were, Ford would have about - oh, 400 million "witnesses". We should be thankful therefore that she has confined herself to a few.
Oh, look another political sleazy character coming out of the woodwork to renew her 15 seconds of historical fame.
Obat Bius Di Medan
Obat Bius Di Palembang
Obat Bius Di Makassar
Obat Bius Manjur
Obat Bius Ampuh
Obat Bius Asli Manjur
Obat Bius Asli Ampuh
Obat Bius Asli
Obat Bius Di Jakarta
Obat Bius Di Pontianak
Post a Comment