Live Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

[the_mother_thing]

Separate from the FBI now looking into the allegations against Kav, I sincerely hope there is an investigation - by the Senate, FBI, whomever - into DiFi’s/her office’s obstruction and mishandling of this allegation upon her receipt of the letter from Ford, as well as the leak of that information to the press which ultimately compromised Ford’s privacy and triggered the series of serious threats against not only her family but Kav’s.

Regardless of where you stand in this particular case, I don’t think anyone wants any elected member of Congress to be so irresponsible in the handling of such sensitive information. And if ANYTHING, the mishandling of Ford’s letter to her two representatives does not encourage any victim to feel comfortable coming forward about their experiences in terms of receiving the confidential handling such a victim and/or his/her allegation deserves in any possible quest for justice.

When you heard/read Dr. Ford’s own testimony, she stated she reached out to DiFi so that her allegations could be considered by “the senate” in their consideration of Kav’s nomination. At no time that I have heard or read (in her original letter to DiFi or in her testimony) did Ford say she wanted ONLY DiFi to be aware of this allegation; only that she wanted her letter to be kept confidential. Her own testimony at the hearing is consistent with this. Contrary to DiFi’s statements, Ford repeatedly says “the Senate” ... not “my Senator” or “my representative” ... she says “the Senate”. That means not only DiFi and her colleagues on the left, but every member of the Senate, or at the very minimum the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford’s words from her testimony:


It has been stated repeatedly that the Senate Judiciary Committee has an established, confidential process for handling such allegations that come up in the course of their hearings/investigations/etc. It would seem DiFi had a duty to leverage that confidential process to - at a very minimum - make the committee confidentially aware of the existence of this allegation, even if they held that information in confidence and did not call for an FBI investigation until such time as Dr. Ford chose to go public. Her mishandling here - as well as the silence by her own party about her mishandling - is absolutely disingenuous considering only two weeks early, every member on "that side of the dais" did nothing but complain, complain, complain about the lack of information being shared pertaining to this nomination. Yet they remain silent now ... when it’s ‘one of their own’.

Instead, DiFi reached in her Rolodex, and plucked out the name of a well-known liberal-leaning law firm ... a firm that recently was the headlining sponsor of a fundraising event for a Dem candidate and “End Citizens United” PAC. A firm who - by Ford’s own testimony - did not reveal to their client that the Senate offered to travel to her so they could take her testimony in a private and comfortable manner for Ford. A firm who - by Ford’s own testimony - did not advise their client she could have leveraged other examiners for the polygraph they advised her to get. A firm who did not advise - as Ms. Mitchell suggested - their client to have a private interview about her experience that tends to yield more details & memories to help bolster a victim’s case.

None of DiFi’s actions - IMO - appear to have had Dr. Ford’s best interest in mind, nor do they appear to be respectful of the very committee & elected body to which she is a member. If there is any care by anyone to ensure victims’ allegations are taken seriously and handled properly and sensitively, they should also call for an investigation into the mishandling of Ford’s allegations from Day 1 by DiFi.

At the VERY least, let this be a lesson to any victim that your own elected official is likely the LAST person to have your best interests at heart when you need them most.

 

[partgypsy]

I think the entire country is feeling raw right now, and it is really regrettable Ford had to testify in such a public matter for her voice to be heard. At the same time I wanted to point out the letter was not sent feinstein, but to representative Ann eshoo. And even the newspaper who leaked the information, stated t was not feinstein who leaked it.

 

[Matata]

, I sincerely hope there is an investigation - by the Senate, FBI, whomever - into DiFi’s/her office’s obstruction and mishandling of this allegation upon her receipt of the letter from Ford,

I'd like to see an overall investigation of the procedural process for sharing documents.
Remember this? https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/01/politics/trump-kavanaugh-bush-supreme-court-documents/index.html

The rules posted on the website only reference 24 and 48 hour requirements for material provided by witnesses. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/rules

 

[Tekate]

You still miss that Diane Feinstein may have been holding this back because how did she know it was true? I can read the Fox Headling now: Diane Feinstein tries to smear Kavanaugh with a letter! who knows what's in it, who knows if it's factual, in your and Red's view of law there is DUTY.

Here is Ford's letter to Feinstein notice it says alleged.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...r-alleged-assault-brett-kavanaugh/1406932002/

Notice also that she says: On July 6, I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

So she wrote her local rep in July.

She was out of pocket till till August 11th.

more info: https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/

In YOUR opinion this: into DiFi’s/her office’s obstruction and mishandling of this allegation upon her receipt of the letter from Ford,

in my opinion she was following what Dr Ford wanted her to do. WHEN I my opinion I mean how I would have handled it, as first and foremost I would wish to protect the alleged victim.

Why do you think how how Feinstein handled this will inhibit others ????? You are extremely partisan in your view of Feinstein, you cannot understand that Ford went to WOMEN not men, she didn't go to Grassley, why is that???

Ford was trying to keep her name out of the press, she went to Feinstein, Feinstein tried to honor her desire for anonymity and then Ford had to come out, maybe Grassley said they had to have her name.. who knows, but to imply nerfarious moves by Feinstein is far fetched.

You do remember there are 11 men on the republican committee, and 4 women an 6 men on the democratic side, clearly CLEARLY Feinstein felt the 11 men would not act on Ford's claims.

You have to give respect to get respect and many many people are disrespectful of Feinstein, but you believe that following the republican way is the only way.

And ending I say: If you are a woman, don't go to a white republican man with your concerns because they do not have your best interests at their core. You can be sure they will not subpoena anyone with possible information.

here's Feinstein's statement. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...ord-allegations-confidential-response-vpx.cnn

Separate from the FBI now looking into the allegations against Kav, I sincerely hope there is an investigation - by the Senate, FBI, whomever - into DiFi’s/her office’s obstruction and mishandling of this allegation upon her receipt of the letter from Ford, as well as the leak of that information to the press which ultimately compromised Ford’s privacy and triggered the series of serious threats against not only her family but Kav’s.

Regardless of where you stand in this particular case, I don’t think anyone wants any elected member of Congress to be so irresponsible in the handling of such sensitive information. And if ANYTHING, the mishandling of Ford’s letter to her two representatives does not encourage any victim to feel comfortable coming forward about their experiences in terms of receiving the confidential handling such a victim and/or his/her allegation deserves in any possible quest for justice.

When you heard/read Dr. Ford’s own testimony, she stated she reached out to DiFi so that her allegations could be considered by “the senate” in their consideration of Kav’s nomination. At no time that I have heard or read (in her original letter to DiFi or in her testimony) did Ford say she wanted ONLY DiFi to be aware of this allegation; only that she wanted her letter to be kept confidential. Her own testimony at the hearing is consistent with this. Contrary to DiFi’s statements, Ford repeatedly says “the Senate” ... not “my Senator” or “my representative” ... she says “the Senate”. That means not only DiFi and her colleagues on the left, but every member of the Senate, or at the very minimum the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford’s words from her testimony:


It has been stated repeatedly that the Senate Judiciary Committee has an established, confidential process for handling such allegations that come up in the course of their hearings/investigations/etc. It would seem DiFi had a duty to leverage that confidential process to - at a very minimum - make the committee confidentially aware of the existence of this allegation, even if they held that information in confidence and did not call for an FBI investigation until such time as Dr. Ford chose to go public. Her mishandling here - as well as the silence by her own party about her mishandling - is absolutely disingenuous considering only two weeks early, every member on "that side of the dais" did nothing but complain, complain, complain about the lack of information being shared pertaining to this nomination. Yet they remain silent now ... when it’s ‘one of their own’.

Instead, DiFi reached in her Rolodex, and plucked out the name of a well-known liberal-leaning law firm ... a firm that recently was the headlining sponsor of a fundraising event for a Dem candidate and “End Citizens United” PAC. A firm who - by Ford’s own testimony - did not reveal to their client that the Senate offered to travel to her so they could take her testimony in a private and comfortable manner for Ford. A firm who - by Ford’s own testimony - did not advise their client she could have leveraged other examiners for the polygraph they advised her to get. A firm who did not advise - as Ms. Mitchell suggested - their client to have a private interview about her experience that tends to yield more details & memories to help bolster a victim’s case.

None of DiFi’s actions - IMO - appear to have had Dr. Ford’s best interest in mind, nor do they appear to be respectful of the very committee & elected body to which she is a member. If there is any care by anyone to ensure victims’ allegations are taken seriously and handled properly and sensitively, they should also call for an investigation into the mishandling of Ford’s allegations from Day 1 by DiFi.

At the VERY least, let this be a lesson to any victim that your own elected official is likely the LAST person to have your best interests at heart when you need them most.

 

[the_mother_thing]

You still miss that Diane Feinstein may have been holding this back because how did she know it was true?

DiFi didn't say that. She said she was asked to keep it confidential.

All we have heard is that "all women must be believed". Are you saying - after talking with Ford herself - DiFi still didn't believe Ford?

 

[Calliecake]

Kavanaugh lied about his drinking in high school and college. If he lies about small things what does this say about his credibility. Many people drink in high school and college. They don’t lie about it.

I found it telling that the republicans have had no regard for the way the Trump Administration has affected thousands and thousands of people’s lives. Yet these same senators were almost moved to tears by Kavanaugh’s testimony. Kavanaugh isn’t facing prosecution, he may not get on the Supreme Court. That is hardly life altering in the way other lives have been altered with little to no empathy by many republicans . Yet they were moved to tears for Kavanaugh? The selected empathy many republicans have is terrible.

The absence of Mark Judge from the hearing was suspicious and the republicans not bringing him before the panel to say Kavanaugh was innocent was also telling. He has stated he didn’t recall this happening which is very different from saying this did NOT happen. This was a carefully planned statement because it’s difficult to charge someone with perjury when their statement isn’t one that draws a conclusion that he was intentionally lying.

 

[redwood66]

You still miss that Diane Feinstein may have been holding this back because how did she know it was true? I can read the Fox Headling now: Diane Feinstein tries to smear Kavanaugh with a letter! who knows what's in it, who knows if it's factual, in your and Red's view of law there is DUTY.

Here is Ford's letter to Feinstein notice it says alleged.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...r-alleged-assault-brett-kavanaugh/1406932002/

Notice also that she says: On July 6, I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

So she wrote her local rep in July.

She was out of pocket till till August 11th.

more info: https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/

In YOUR opinion this: into DiFi’s/her office’s obstruction and mishandling of this allegation upon her receipt of the letter from Ford,

in my opinion she was following what Dr Ford wanted her to do. WHEN I my opinion I mean how I would have handled it, as first and foremost I would wish to protect the alleged victim.

Why do you think how how Feinstein handled this will inhibit others ????? You are extremely partisan in your view of Feinstein, you cannot understand that Ford went to WOMEN not men, she didn't go to Grassley, why is that???

Ford was trying to keep her name out of the press, she went to Feinstein, Feinstein tried to honor her desire for anonymity and then Ford had to come out, maybe Grassley said they had to have her name.. who knows, but to imply nerfarious moves by Feinstein is far fetched.

You do remember there are 11 men on the republican committee, and 4 women an 6 men on the democratic side, clearly CLEARLY Feinstein felt the 11 men would not act on Ford's claims.

You have to give respect to get respect and many many people are disrespectful of Feinstein, but you believe that following the republican way is the only way.

And ending I say: If you are a woman, don't go to a white republican man with your concerns because they do not have your best interests at their core. You can be sure they will not subpoena anyone with possible information.

here's Feinstein's statement. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...ord-allegations-confidential-response-vpx.cnn

And I think you and others are being partisan as well. It works both ways. You believe the Dem way is the only way and that he is guilty. So here we are. I hope Feinstein did not do it, and Graham said yesterday he did not think she did. So your idea that he is partisan in that matter toward her is out the window. Somebody leaked the information and it wasn't the Rs. Nothing is CLEAR about how this was handled.

11 Republican men so it couldn't possibly be fair. I would be worried taking a concern to Dems for fear they would use me as a cudgel against their opponents for all the world to see. There is no point in even talking about this any longer.

 

[partgypsy]

Anyways for those angry at feinstein, there is no evidence she leaked Ford's letter, in fact there is a rebuttal from the reporter that it was her or anyone on her team. At this time we don't know who leaked the information. Anyways, the Republicans will get their supreme Court Justice. No one is expecting Democrats to have control of the Senate, before or after the midterms, and it's another 2 years before we get another president. I don't see why Republicans want to die on this hill. Kavanaughs is a very divisive choice, second only to bork. There are plenty of other choices much less divisive.

 

[redwood66]

Oh there are plenty that are much more conservative and much more of a worry for Dems. He was actually mainstream in his views of RvW.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Anyways for those angry at feinstein, there is no evidence she leaked Ford's letter ...

We don't know that; there hasn't been an investigation. There isn't any evidence Kav assaulted Ford either but an investigation has been demanded. And don't tell me DiFi isn't "being interviewed"; she is up for re-election for a very powerful position as well, and Americans - especially her constituents - deserve to know the truth. Her actions and her role have an effect on every American.

Don't you (collectively) want to know the truth?

 

[partgypsy]

We know that anyone Trump picks, will be extremely conservative, and out of the mainstream for roe vs Wade, corporate power, and human rights. And, who ever gets on the court will serve for many many years. In that way, this is a blip, and Trump truly is a winner in the sense that he won the election (help of Russians notwithstanding) and will be able to pick one or more supreme Court justices.

 

[redwood66]

We know that anyone Trump picks, will be extremely conservative, and out of the mainstream for roe vs Wade, corporate power, and human rights. And, who ever gets on the court will serve for many many years. In that way, this is a blip, and Trump truly is a winner in the sense of picking supreme Court justices.

And now you know how important it is to people who believe that the Constitution is not a living document. Trump was elected for this reason above all others by many people who don't even like him one bit.

 

[Calliecake]

Oh please. I seriously doubt an overwhelming number of Trump voters know much about the Constitution other than the 2nd amendment says they have the right to have as many guns as the want.

Trump himself doesn’t know much about the Constitution. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

 

[redwood66]

Oh please. I seriously doubt an overwhelming number of Trump voters know much about the Constitution other than the 2nd amendment says they have the right to have as many guns as the want.

Trump himself doesn’t know much about the Constitution. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

IMO a preponderance of Dems think that the document gets in the way of making America a "better place."

You keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better Callie.

 

[partgypsy]

And now you know how important it is to people who believe that the Constitution is not a living document. Trump was elected for this reason above all others by many people who don't even like him one bit.

LOL LOL LOL You have and you will see more erosion of the constitution, it's original intent with Trump, than you will EVER have seen with Clinton. Why do you think NONE of the current living presidents endorsed Trump (Republicans included)? Judging by the things he has said and done, it is obvious this president is the most ignorant of the content of the constituion than any other US president. Or arrogantly doesn't care (due process, freedom of the press, right to assemble and protest, separate of church and state including regarding immigration, powers AND limitations of the executive branch including waging war, foreign powers interfering in elections or giving donations to the President, removing financial conflict of interest if president, ignoring constitution's intent to limit corporate rights, and so on. ). Enjoy your Mad King. And like a true king he even installed his family members as WH staff.

 

[redwood66]

LOL LOL LOL You have and you will see more erosion of the constitution, it's original intent with Trump, than you will EVER have seen with Clinton. Why do you think NONE of the current living presidents endorsed Trump, Republicans included? Enjoy your King.

It's not about Trump. It's about who Clinton would have put on the bench. It amazes me how difficult it is for people to understand this.

 

[partgypsy]

Anyways, there may be many reasons why people voted for Trump. But upholding and respecting the constitution, is surely not one of them, unless you think the constitution begins and ends with the 2nd amendment.

(eta) Well Redwood, if you truly respected the constitution, you would know that the 3 branches were always supposed to serve as checks and balances against each other. Even the original framers were worried about the potential for the president to gain power over the other branches. Have Trump be able to place justices that essentially say a sitting president is above the law, is surely goes against a fundamental framing of the constitution, both originalist and intent. But it appears Republicans are perfectly OK with that. Protectors of the constitution, they are not. Just be honest and say this has to do with Gun rights and overturning Roe vs Wade. Otherwise it's like Kavanaugh saying the devil's triangle refers to a drinking game.

 

[redwood66]

LOL LOL LOL You have and you will see more erosion of the constitution, it's original intent with Trump, than you will EVER have seen with Clinton. Why do you think NONE of the current living presidents endorsed Trump (Republicans included)? Judging by the things he has said and done, it is obvious this president is the most ignorant of the content of the constituion than any other US president. Or arrogantly doesn't care (due process, separate of church and state including regarding immigration, powers AND limitations of the executive branch including waging war, foreign powers interfering in elections or giving donations to the President, removing financial conflict of interest if president, ignoring constitution's intent to limit corporate rights, and so on. ). Enjoy your Mad King. And like a true king he even installed his family members as WH staff.

LOLOLOL on foreign powers interfering. I believe Obama was president when it happened. Waging war? The Drone King? Please. Donations? You need to do some fact checking of your own.

We could do this all day long but it is silly.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Trump is the best Prez. since Reagan.

 

[redwood66]

Anyways, there may be many reasons why people voted for Trump. But upholding and respecting the constitution, is surely not one of them, unless you think the constitution begins and ends with the 2nd amendment.

(eta) Well Redwood, if you truly respected the constitution, you would know that the 3 branches were always supposed to serve as checks and balances against each other. Even the original framers were worried about the potential for the president to gain power over the other branches. Have Trump be able to place justices that essentially say a sitting president is above the law, is surely goes against a fundamental framing of the constitution, both originalist and intent. But it appears Republicans are perfectly OK with that. Protectors of the constitution, they are not. Just be honest and say this has to do with Gun rights and overturning Roe vs Wade. Otherwise it's like Kavanaugh saying the devil's triangle refers to a drinking game.

Keep telling yourself it's all about guns. You don't listen to anything anyone of an opposing viewpoint says.

Edit- When it's proven any laws have been broken then by all means string him up. I'll wait for Mueller. And I am definitely waiting for Hororwitz's report to see the extent of the corruption in the DOJ and FBI was while Obama was president.

 

[redwood66]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/28...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-6bbbb1d116-83959769

 

[Matata]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/28...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-6bbbb1d116-83959769

Sounds suspiciously like an article written by a Russian troll. And, no, I'm not saying that because it doesn't reflect my personal platform.

 

[soxfan]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/28...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-6bbbb1d116-83959769

Oh wahhhh. A former democrat becomes a republican. I can find an article about a republican now becoming a democrat. This means NOTHING.

Also, the Federalist published an article that defended Roy Moore’s dating of teenagers while he was in his 30s and argued that such behavior was “not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.”

Give me a damn break.

 

[redwood66]

Sounds suspiciously like an article written by a Russian troll. And, no, I'm not saying that because it doesn't reflect my personal platform.

I could say that about many anonymous articles posted here as well, but that is not likely with The Federalist. Why would you think his story implausible?

 

[redwood66]

Oh wahhhh. A former democrat becomes a republican. I can find an article about a republican now becoming a democrat. This means NOTHING.

Also, the Federalist published an article that defended Roy Moore’s dating of teenagers while he was in his 30s and argued that such behavior was “not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.”

Give me a damn break.

It isn't supposed to mean anything. It is information. Get over it.

 

[soxfan]

 

[redwood66]

So? I am a right leaning individual. Like I said, get over it.

You lean so far left you'll tip over. We all have our views.

 

[soxfan]

So? I am a right leaning individual. Like I said, get over it.

Oh I know that, Red. I'm just saying that for every article that has a dem flipping to Republican, one can find an article about a Republican flipping to a dem. It doesn't mean anything in the big scheme of things.

 

[redwood66]

Oh I know that, Red. I'm just saying that for every article that has a dem flipping to Republican, one can find an article about a Republican flipping to a dem. It doesn't mean anything in the big scheme of things.

Go right ahead, it will just blend in with all the left leaning babble posted. I need to get busy to keep up.

The point was someone else seeing this circus for what it is.

 

[Matata]

Why would you think his story implausible?

Many of the "I'm switching to the republican party" articles and social media posts written by the russian trolls that have been exposed as such are templates where the reason/situation leading to party switching is changed to fit current events. Many of the authors are allegedly minorities or other members of disenfranchised groups. I've seen thousands of them on FB and in liberal and conservative publications. I didn't claim your link was such a pub, but it sure follows the pattern and gave me an eerie flashback feeling when I read it. These trolls have infiltrated more places than you would think so regardless of this particular article, please don't underestimate their power to infiltrate.