The term you’re better off questioning is “evidence.” A more accurate term for what prompted the referral would have been “accusation,” as @Brainspore corrected in his follow-up.
There’s a distinction between a “credible accusation” (i.e. an allegation of an offense which is convincing enough to call for further investigation) and one that’s “indictable” (i.e. one which warrants criminal charges and a trial, usually involving evidence). This is not the latter and, given the time that’s passed, likely won’t be. However, the letter was believable and disturbing enough that Feinstein felt it should be handed to the FBI for follow-up, especially since the man accused is being vetted for a very powerful public position in part on the basis of his integrity and character.
Now an honourable and fair-minded party would say “let’s let the FBI check out this serious allegation and clear him so we can move on and get him confirmed.” But of course we’re dealing with the GOP here:
That would be quite the task. Almost as difficult as finding those 65 female HS classmates supporting him. She appears to have said while they were in HS - not at the same HS.
Kavanaugh went to an all boys prep school. Not sure how they found 65 female classmates- quite the coup.
It does seem suspiciously coincidental. One thing: the 65 women they found aren’t classmates; they were members of an all-girls school nearby who said they remembered him going to mixers and social functions and being a “gentleman”.
In fairness to the Republicans, getting a wide range of advance character references about their high-profile nominees is usually a smart move given how slimy and dishonest most of them turn out to be.
If the letter was believable, why did she sit on it for a month?
As to the FBI checking it out - shouldn't that have been done quietly and without the entire country wondering the truth of it. If the woman wanted anonymity, she had better now say that her memory isn't clear. The only way now to remain anonymous is to let the matter die.
Feinstein has done wrong by everyone in talking to the press.
Perhaps she had her office do some informal checking on it first to make sure it was worth taking up the time of the FBI. When these hearings happen a lot of these accusations are sent to Senators’ offices and a lot of them aren’t worth serious follow-up. Apparently this one was.
Ideally, yes. As I and others have said, she was probably forced into issuing the release once the story started leaking. At that point “doing things quietly” can look like an attempted cover-up. Progressives already don’t like Feinstein and would have spun it just that way if she hadn’t gotten ahead of things. It’s a no-win situation so she went with limited transparency.
That’s an impressively thuggish threat, even in a time when slut-shaming of women who allege they were raped is on the decline in society. However, I’m sure in the course of Feinstein’s informal vetting of the letter the alleged victim was told that it would be sent to the FBI for further investigation and, if it was deemed valid, that her anonymity would likely go out the window.
There are a lot of reasons I don’t like or trust Feinstein, but I don’t think she’d exploit or lie to someone coming to her with an allegation that she was raped.
The letter was conceived and drafted by friends of Brett’s, and it was drafted after allegations came out on Thursday
I stand corrected. The GOP is slipping, though; usually they pre-prepare these character reference letters knowing their nominees have some nasty skeletons in their closets.* It must have been quite the hilarious scramble to round up 65 women so quickly.
Also, I’m sure those “friends of Brett’s” she mentions have absolutely no connection to the GOP. And I’m sure none of them got wind of the leaks about the letters because they’re totally not Beltway insiders. Just regular folks, amirite?
[* the Dems are, typically, too hapless and trusting to do this, but they also have better nominees who aren’t interested in destroying or corrupting the institutions they want to head up]
I have not looked up all the names on the letter. So I cannot presume their politics.
But if he is innocent, it would be impossible to prove. An accusation of an offense against an unknown person in an unknown place on an unknown date ensures that. He cannot prove that he did not know her. Or that he was somewhere else at the time. The best anyone could do in that situation is provide testimony from people that knew him well at the time that such behavior would be out of character for him.
If he is guilty, it ought to be possible to find instances where he repeated the behavior.
The question of the politics of those who conceived and drafted the letter, and perhaps at whose behest and with whose help, is more interesting. That part of her tell-all about “how it went down” was left out.
That’s true. When these “boys will be boys” scumbags don’t get caught or don’t have to face consequences for their actions they tend to repeat that behaviour.
You know, around the time I started middle school, it came out in the news that my former third grade teacher had been arrested for molesting students. Now I could absolutely sign a letter swearing that Mr. Desmarias never laid a finger on me and that’d be true. And it would also be totally irrelevant to whether or not he was actually molesting students. He could hardly molest everyone.
It’s like people think that if you’re capable of attacking one or two or three women you must therefore have attacked every single one you know.
The allegation was that she was held down and threatened, and that she was afraid. There is no allegation of rape. But that’s the funny thing about spreading rumors - they tend to grow beyond credulity…
Because, according to what we know, she got away from them. It’s an allegation of attempted rape, involving assault (pinning her down) and uttering threats of a sexual nature. But thanks for letting us know you think that some forms of sexual assault are no big deal.
Oh, so it’s not “real rape” so we can just ignore it. Boys will be boys, after all, eh? Besides, good girls don’t go to parties like that, so clearly, she was asking for it! /s
I didn’t say no big deal, I said there was no allegation of rape. You keep using words that don’t mean what you think they mean. You think “credible” means “might be true”. You think “rape” means “threatening”.
This is the problem, right? You can't quote correctly what was said by someone today - but you think someone's memory of an event from 30 years ago is credible.
I acknowledged in response to you that this is an allegation of attempted rape. Both rape and attempted rape are sexual assaults on a non-consenting victim. You seem to think that the slight difference of degree is a yawning chasm, one side of which an investigation might be called for and the other side not at all.
I think “credible” means what it means: believable. I think rape and attempted rape are both equally deplorable and traumatising. Further, I think a credible accusation of attempted rape in the past of a nominee to the SCOTUS is worthy of further informal vetting and, if warranted, referral to the federal authorities for formal investigation.
Based on conversations I’ve had over the years with women who trusted me enough to open up to me about these matters I most certainly do. Some of them described sexual assaults (attempted or otherwise) from when they were kids, some when they were in HS or college – all in a credible manner I wish I could un-hear but more than that I wish they never had reason to tell me about.
