Only in a broad sense, which is why the FBI was called in as liberals were asking all along. Your continual implication that the standard has to be that of a court of law’s is … BS.
Never was “timely” enough for the GOP, who were hellbent on pushing this through and did everything they could to avoid waiting for her testimony or an investigation. And the moment the story got out they were anything but quiet. So BS.
“I have offered her the opportunity to testify in any of four possible venues: (1) a public hearing; (2) a private hearing; (3) a public staff interview; or (4) a private staff interview. I am even willing to have my staff travel to Dr. Ford in California — or anywhere else — to obtain her testimony.” Chuck Grassley
Mitchell: “I ask that because its been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true?”
Ford: “I was hoping that they would come to me (in California) but I realized that was an unrealistic request.”
…
Mitchell : Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you, and that they offered to come out to California to do so?
Ford Attorney : I’m going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversation between counsel and Dr. Ford.
Mitchell : Could you validate that the offer was made, without saying a word? Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?
Ford : Can I say something to you? Do you mind if I say something to you directly? I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not – it was not clear to me that that was the case.
Judging by the frantic and conspicuous shovelling of cow manure in this topic alone I have to question whether he’s capable of doing that. Not that he’s unique when we look at the larger picture of American conservatives’ response to Ford coming forward.
Once Ford obtained counsel, communications to her regarding testimony were sent to her legal representative. Grassley made several offers to send investigators to her for the interviews, and to conduct them either in public or private. Ford did not seem to know about these offers. She had no idea that the public hearing she endured was unnecessary.
That is not a criticism of Dr. Ford.
Had he calmly rebutted the accusations, we would be discussing how his emotionless response is proof of his guilt. He is being accused of organizing a series of gang rapes. His response is not just a defense against the allegations of groping Dr. Ford at a party. It is accepted that the reaction of a survivor of trauma can vary tremendously by individual. But the same latitude is not given the accused. That is why I invoked Kafka, specifically “Der Process”.
Any response to the accusations is seen as proof of guilt.
I am not even alleging he is innocent. But the process is seriously messed up.
BS. She said she was unclear about the nature of the Grassley’s offer, which came in after her counsel said she was willing to testify in public to the committee. She hasn’t criticised her counsel about how things were handled.
No-one’s claiming you’re criticising here, at least directly. Your implication that anyone is stands as more BS.
You specifically invoked Eric Raymond’s 2010 term “Kafkatrap”. You didn’t discuss “The Trial” until later, when you were called on that particular piece of BS.
