So we are reduced to “both sides do it, so it’s all good”? That’s disappointing.
No, where the fuck did you get that? Please don’t put words in my mouth. A dangerous person is about to get on the bench, someone who might have crimes in his past, and the GOP is being willful obstructionist here. It wouldn’t matter what DF or anyone had asked him in the hearings, he’d evade it or the head of the committee WOULD HAVE SHUT THEM DOWN. We have a one party state right now, and the one party in charge (unlike many members of the Democratic party who are far more likely to reach across the aisle and work with their colleagues) is so hell bent on getting their way that they actively shut down all opposition, no matter how within the rules and bounds of decorum it is.
22 Likes
The cake is a lie, and so too is your statement.
14 Likes
Especially considering that’s not what I said at all…
11 Likes
I hope you weren’t disappointed!
4 Likes
I’m sure the victims feel the same way.
10 Likes
Why DF did not ask about this when BK was under oath is a legitimate question. If she had knowledge about alleged crimes in his past, but did not bring them up at the hearing, is seems irresponsible.
1 Like
He would have just evaded it like every other tough question he was asked.
The entire hearing process was a complete joke. Kavanaugh basically provided nothing of substance and he’ll most likely slide through on a sharply partisan vote for what’s supposed to be an apolitical position. The only hope of keeping this guy off the bench are by using tactics like this (and what Cory Booker is bravely doing as well).
Is it hugely political? Absofuckinglutely. But it’s about the only weapon left at this point.
18 Likes
And what good would it have done?
8 Likes
I agree that this is typical establishment Dem behaviour (and you don’t get more Dem establishment than Feinstein) but in this case it might have been the right or the only move.
It sounds like there wasn’t enough in the allegation for her to bring up in the public hearings but that (as is common with sexual assault cases) there was enough to warrant further investigation by the FBI. It also sounds like there was enough buzz about it that she had to balance things out by issuing the press release so it didn’t look to liberals and progressives like she was covering things up.
10 Likes
I’m sure that’s the case, but for once I’d like to see a dem actually come out swinging. Just one time that matters.
5 Likes
When the Pugs heard that he is at least an “attempted rapist” they new they had to seat him.
It could, after all, negatively affect his job prospects in other arenas.
Given that Kavanaugh has been proven to have lied under oath, repeatedly, with no consequences, it seems to me that all that would have done would have ensured that the accusation got lost in the noise. Releasing it afterwards is a way to focus attention on it.
11 Likes
4 Likes
Thread:
Keep this in mind, next time you hear the phrase “run government like a business.”
10 Likes
Favorite Supreme Court case is the hacky, cliched Biddle v. Perovich .
Perovich was convicted in Alaska of murder, the verdict being that he was “guilty of murder in the first degree and that he suffer death.” On September 15, 1905, he was sentenced to be hanged, and the judgment was affirmed by this Court. Perovich v. United States, 205 U. S. 86. Respites were granted from time to time, and on June 5, 1909, President Taft executed a document by which he purported to “commute the sentence of the said Vuco Perovich . . . to imprisonment for life in a penitentiary to be designated by the Attorney General of the United States.”
Thereupon Perovich was transferred from jail in Alaska to a penitentiary in Washington, and some years later to one in Leavenworth, Kansas. In November, 1918, Perovich, reciting that his sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment, applied for a pardon – and did the same thing again on December 10, 1921. On February 20, 1925, he filed in the District Court for the District of Kansas an application for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his removal from jail to a penitentiary and the order of the President were without his consent and without legal authority.
1 Like
If everything is taken at face value, she has an unsubstantiated and unreported allegation of misconduct from 30 years ago when everyone involved was a minor. I’m not sure what you consider “credible evidence”, but in my book, that isn’t it.
Feinstein hasn’t made an accusation. She’s publicly acknowledging the existence of a letter making a credible accusation.
15 Likes
It’s your use of “credible” that I’m questioning.
An accusation of something that has been unreported for 30 years is a weak start. There is no record of it, those involved were minors, and even if it were 100% true, there is no way it could be proved. Add to that the accuser has said she does not wish to make the allegation publicly, so how in the world can you call it "credible".
The proper label for this type of behavior on Feinstein's part is "rumor mongering".