"[M]any Kavanaugh foes are eager to implement a new standard that they would never agree to live under themselves"

Ford gave a total of $72 to Democrats, so either Palo Alto mortgage payments eliminated her disposable income or she was a fairly tepid Democrat. We should avoid suggesting that she was motivated by political bias until we actually have proof—keep in mind here that again, she passed a polygraph and appears to believe what she’s saying. Really, the worst I can insinuate about her, at least without a lot of additional evidence, is that she either didn’t notice or didn’t care the blatant political games Feinstein et al are playing with her case.

Feinstein, on the other hand, has got to be one of the most cynical people on the face of the planet. After all those years in the Senate, she should know better, but doesn’t because she’s gotten away with it for decades.

Once again, my best bet is Parker’s thesis, mistaken identity by Ford, which is not hard to understand when everyone is drunk. Here’s a story from a friend along those lines.

Ok, the word is this morning that Ford is declining the invitation to come testify to the senate. So the GOP leadership has called her bluff, and she won’t testify, instead she calling for FBI to investigate (FBI has already done multiple background checks on Kav.), which is what Feinstein wanted all along—a mechanism by which to delay the vote, and/or hope more accusers would materialize somehow. There is nothing here folks. This is a wide open obvious attempt to take a man down, destroy his integrity and his career. As long as we are ‘being careful’ we need to be careful as a nation because we are on the cusp of only getting corrupt leaders because anyone with integrity will not pursue public service because of the trashing received for political gain. Read the commentary posted by Jim above.

Ok, the word is this morning that Ford is declining the invitation to come testify to the senate. So the GOP leadership has called her bluff, and she won’t testify, instead she calling for FBI to investigate (FBI has already done multiple background checks on Kav.), which is what Feinstein wanted all along—a mechanism by which to delay the vote, and/or hope more accusers would materialize somehow. There is nothing here folks. This is a wide open obvious attempt to take a man down, destroy his integrity and his career. As long as we are ‘being careful’ we need to be careful as a nation because we are on the cusp of only getting corrupt leaders because anyone with integrity will not pursue public service because of the trashing received for political gain. Read the commentary posted by Jim above.

And you know all this how? Are you not trashing a woman without having a clue as to what the truth actually is? Does truth matter to you or are you just obsessed with your political agenda at the expense of truth?

“And you know all this how? Are you not trashing a woman without having a clue as to what the truth actually is? Does truth matter to you or are you just obsessed with your political agenda at the expense of truth?”

I am not trashing this woman at all. She has trashed Kavanaugh, in public, for all to hear, and then when offered the chance to attend a private hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she declines. That is like crying FIRE in a crowded theater and then after someone is trampled to death coming back to say, well, I didn’t really mean it. Real damage has been done to Kavanaugh by Ford’s statements, and her refusal to follow through and put on record her allegations says all we need to know. Her accusations were vague to begin with, and have had contradictory details. Have you actually read details in this account? The accusations are not even specific enough to raise concerns among the most left leaning Republican Senators.

Furthermore, others who have been named have come to Kavanaugh’s defense. No other woman has come forward to say, yes, this guy did this to me too.

As to the political angle, Sen. Feinstein has had knowledge of this for months and waited until this very moment to bring this out. Why? And there is a pattern to this sort of thing, as outlined in the article Jim linked to above.

I am the one concerned with truth here. All the evidence points to this being a hit job, and when Sen. Grassley invited Ford to the hearing, and others including Sen. Flake who begged her to come and state her case, the response is no, she won’t come and testify.

Was Joseph in Egypt guilty? After all, Mrs. Potiphar testified directly as to what happened, she had a date, a time, she had his garment, and she could make the case that Joseph had the access, and the motive, and after all he was a slave who had been discarded by his family. But Joseph was innocent. And in the case with Kavanaugh, Ford has no date, time, garment or any other such evidence. And when asked to come under oath and speak to the senate, she refuses. Why?

Senator Graham of SC said it this way: “Here is what I want your audience to know. If Miss Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward, why did she pay for a polygraph in August and why did she hire a lawyer in August if she never intended to do what she’s doing?… And who’s paid for it?”

It amazes me that in these situations few any more want to even consider being open to the possibility that the accused male could be innocent. This is a scary new world in which we live where a man’s life can be destroyed only on the strength of an unsubstantiated accusation. If one is found to actually be guilty, then throw the book at him. Lock him up.

But when there is only one vague accusation, with a very clear political meta-narrative, and no other women came forward to say Me Too, and the vague accusation has conflicting details in it, and then the accuser refuses the chance to go under oath and testify at a closed-door hearing, then I make no apology for my comment above and take offense at your accusation that I am trashing a woman.

Darrell, not only are you trashing a woman but you are doing so from the position of ignorance. You have no idea what the truth is.

I am taking no position on this because I don’t know the truth. You think you know truth but you don’t either. You just know “facts” and spin that you have been fed by whatever your preferred news media is. The only right thing to do when you do not have the facts is to be quiet, and stop throwing stones and trashing people that may be innocent.

Greg, I am not trashing a woman. I am interacting with the facts, statements, and actions that are all public for anyone to see. If I commented without educating myself as to the facts, statements and actions in the case, then I would be ignorant. But I have read widely on this issue. This is the same as all of the senators I mentioned, they are also interacting with the facts, statements, and actions. They wanted to hear more from Ms. Ford, but she is refusing to put on record what she has stated in public. She has trashed Mr. Kavanaugh, and now will not put that on record or answer questions about it. That you cannot see the inherent unfairness with this is astounding to me.

Do you think the senators, who have raised questions beyond mine, and the witnesses who have come to Kavanaugh’s defense are also trashing a woman?

Let’s put aside the term “trashing a woman” because it is pejorative and not helpful.

What you are doing is judging a case and presuming who is guilty/innocent when you don’t know the evidence or little else about it.

To do what you are doing is irresponsible and wrong. It is also ignorant and borderline slanderous. What people in your position should do is to resolve to put truth above politics and just be quiet unless you know something about the situation (which you don’t).

Greg,

You used that term “trashing a woman” in an accusation against me, now you want to put it away.

What you are doing is judging a case and presuming who is guilty/innocent when you don’t know the evidence or little else about it.

Not at all Greg. There is no case here. Everyone has the same basic set of information. You, me, and the senators involved in the hearings. Ms. Ford made public statements against Mr. Kavanaugh, then when given the opportunity to come to the senate closed door hearings to put this on the record and answer questions, she has refused.

To do what you are doing is irresponsible and wrong. It is also ignorant and borderline slanderous.

Not at all Greg. Are all of these senators irresponsible and wrong? Are those who have come to Kavanugh’s defense irresponsible and wrong? Are all the non-existent women who haven’t come forward to say ME TOO also irresponsible and wrong?

Given that Ms. Ford refuses to go on record with her accusation only confirms that it was her who was slanderous against Mr. Kavanaugh. Again, you cannot use your words to do real damage to someone and then back off and refuse to stand by your words for the record.

Even Sen. Feinstein who has been behind all this has just come out and said, “I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.” Is Sen. Feinstein also irresponsible, wrong, and borderline slanderous?

Sigh…

I said I would quit using “trashing a woman” in an effort to be more civil. You want to my attempt at civility against me. Sad. Pathetic…

You have NO clue as to what the truth is or what happened in that room decades ago. None. Nada.

Seems like when you don’t know the truth, it would be beneficial to shut up and stop prejudging. But is just me. Do what you want. By all means, put your political agenda above truth.

BTW, this is not for you since you already know everything but for those of us that don’t, Ford is not a criminal. She is not obligated to show up to testify when demanded to by the Senate on their timeline. Her refusal to play acquiesce to their demands does not mean she is lying.

I found this article interesting in light of the discussions and accusations.

http://www2.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/brett-kavanaugh-christ…

We may not ever know the truth. What we do not have yet is hard evidence. Did he do it? I don’t know. I am skeptical but I don’t see evidence. If someone asked me about or accused me of some things from high school I would probably have to say, “I really don’t remember and don’t want to.” Of course I started high school 50 years ago. I work in the behavioral health and criminal justice field. I do a lot of interviews and assessments. I’ve seen memories suppressed, invented, suggested, and manipulated. I work with people who hear voices I don’t hear and see things that I don’t see. The mind holds great mysteries. We need evidence before we ruin someone’s career. After 35 years it may be too late to have evidence that will convince anyone who’s mind is not already made up.

Probably good to restate what we know; we have one witness telling one story, and three witnesses telling another, three and a half decades after the fact. The one witness admits she’d been drinking, and there is no physical evidence, no location, no date of the crime, not much at all there besides the claim. Even beyond the issues with the statute of limitations, I don’t know that many prosecutors would bring it to trial because quite frankly they don’t like losing. This is one big reason that only six out of every 370 allegations of sexual assault end up with a prison term—the nature of sexual assault is that it tends to be he said/she said unless there is physical evidence or witnesses to corroborate it, and many times those people were intoxicated. It doesn’t make for an easy case to win.

Regarding the political implications, let’s tread lightly. The actions of Senator Feinstein are all very consistent with trying to run out the clock on Kavanaugh’s nomination, to be sure, and I think it’s very fair to criticize her for that. The path back to Dr. Ford is more tenuous, and I don’t think we ought to go there yet. The alternative hypothesis—that she’s simply scared of what going public means—is still admissible, in my view.

“You have NO clue as to what the truth is or what happened in that room decades ago”

Greg, that’s the point! I don’t, you don’t, the senators don’t, and so all we have is this:

1) An unsubstaniated, unprovable claim made by someone who admittedly has only a vague recollection of the details.

2) We have those who knew Kavanaugh at that age and in that context, and they have come to Kavanaugh’s defense.

3) We also have Mr. Kavanaugh who not only absolutely denies the allegation, but even denies ever being in that sort of situation at all.

4) We also have, and this is the defining issue now, an accuser who now is NOT willing to go on the record with her claim against Mr. Kavanaugh. She therefore leaves us little choice but to believe Mr. Kavanaugh and those witnesses who have affirmed his innocence and the integrity of his character.

Again, I am astounded that you seem to be saying someone can make an accusation that destroys the integrity of another person, causing the person real loss, and then be given shelter from having to put such an accusation on the record.

She has had MONTHS to prepare for this moment, and the Republican senators were gracious with her in the invitation. Sen. Flake in particular was begging her to come and be heard. I even read an account of a mainstream news reporter pointing this out—that GOP made every effort to help her voice be heard.

It is not me or Republican leadership with a political agenda here. The Republicans have a long history of voting overwhelmingly for the SCOTUS appointees of Democratic Presidents. That favor, in recent decades, has not been returned. Look up the numbers.

[Darrell Post]

It is not me or Republican leadership with a political agenda here. The Republicans have a long history of voting overwhelmingly for the SCOTUS appointees of Democratic Presidents. That favor, in recent decades, has not been returned. Look up the numbers.

Darrell, if you actually think the Republicans are better than the Democrats in regard to politicizing issues or things like this, we are not on the same planet. If you actually can say what you just said in light of what happened during Obama’s last year and Garland, you have drunk way too much Kool-Aid to argue with. I give up.

The Democrats would have done the exact same thing had the Garland roles been reversed and you know it. In fact, it was Democrat Joe Biden who had already laid down that principle that the GOP appealed to in the decision to delay a hearing during an election year.

[Darrell Post]

The Democrats would have done the exact same thing had the Garland roles been reversed and you know it. In fact, it was Democrat Joe Biden who had already laid down that principle that the GOP appealed to in the decision to delay a hearing during an election year.

Haha go back and reread your last two posts Darrell. I just want to clarify. Is your defense that the Republicans are superior to Democrats in this or that the Democrats are just as bad?

But for the record, yes the Democrats would have done the same thing. Of course they would have. I see no difference whatsoever between how Democrats and Republicans act. Neither of them care about truth in this issue either. They just want to get political leverage.