New SCOTUS Judge

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Results of call:

In nearly an hour-long telephone call in which the Judiciary Committee staff did most of the listening, Debra Katz, an attorney for Christine Blasey Ford, went through a series of concerns and preferences should she agree to appear before the committee next week.

It's the first time Republicans on the committee have spoken directly with Ford's attorneys since she went public with the allegation against Kavanaugh on Sunday and the discussion seems to have thawed a stand-off between the two parties as to whether she would testify.

Among the requests, the one that appeared to be non-negotiable for Ford was a Monday appearance. The earliest she could show would be Thursday, Republican and Democratic sources told NBC News. Monday is the day that Senate Republicans had originally offered for Ford to come testify and when Kavanaugh has said he is ready to testify.

Ford’s attorney also relayed her concern about security and asked that the committee work with her to ensure she would be safe if she agrees to testify.

Here are the other items Ford requested:

• Wants to testify second and Kavanaugh to appear first;
• Doesn't want Kavanaugh in the room at the same time with her;
• Prefers not to be questioned by outside counsel, but rather by the senators on the committee;
• Would like the committee to subpoena Mark Judge, the other student Ford alleges to be in the room at the time of the assault, to testify;
• Says each senator should have equal time questioning (already committee practice);
• No time limit on her opening statement; and
• Will appear at a public hearing but she would like to limit the number of cameras to pool coverage.

After consulting with committee members, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is expected to present Ford with a counter offer as early as Friday.

Linky.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

BK has already given a statement under oath on this subject.

But he hasn’t been questioned under oath on the subject, has he?

The three others have been requested to do so as well, and i do not know their present status.

Okay. I seem to recall you earlier giving one or more of them credit for making statements. Now we appear to be closer to agreement in that, if I’m reading you right, you tacitly acknowledge there’s the further level of testimony - sworn - which I’ve been saying will be somewhat more significant than without. Furthermore, should any of them refuse such a modest request, it would imply his/their initial statement(s) is/are less than compelling.

Ford has thus far refused, although slightly walked back her condition to testifying.

Seems her refusal is only contingent on her not-at-all-unreasonable desire that there first be an investigation of the matter. By all accounts she’s otherwise ready to proceed.

 

[Babbylonian]

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I suspect there are quite a few men who managed to make it through their teenage years without grabbing tits when they were not welcome. That's a pretty low bar to get over.

But consent is so hard! After all, who would want to talk to someone with whom one wants to be intimate?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
That isn't what happened here (allegedly). When it comes to Mr. Kavanaugh's alleged behavior, I am less concerned about a hand that might have touched her breast over her clothes, than I am about the hand that (allegedly) covered her mouth. This wasn't two teenagers exploring sexuality and seeing how far they could go. This was (allegedly) a violent attack where lack of consent was obvious and forceful. It really isn't the same thing, and it's quite dangerous to confuse the two situations.

This ^ Except I'd take 'allegedly' out because I not only find her credible, I can't believe there's any reason someone would make this up when years back she named the guy when she went to counseling.

 

[The Big Dog]

But he hasn’t been questioned under oath on the subject, has he?

Okay. I seem to recall you earlier giving one or more of them credit for making statements. Now we appear to be closer to agreement in that, if I’m reading you right, you tacitly acknowledge there’s the further level of testimony - sworn - which I’ve been saying will be somewhat more significant than without. Furthermore, should any of them refuse such a modest request, it would imply his/their initial statement(s) is/are less than compelling.

Seems her refusal is only contingent on her not-at-all-unreasonable desire that there first be an investigation of the matter. By all accounts she’s otherwise ready to proceed.

Yes, he has been questioned on this subject “under penalty of felony” and advised today that he will be there Monday to testify before the committee.

The accuser has refused to be interviewed and will not be there Monday.

So... good points

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Sounds like TBD wants Cory Booker on the Supreme Court.

 

[The Big Dog]

This ^ Except I'd take 'allegedly' out because I not only find her credible, I can't believe there's any reason someone would make this up when years back she named the guy when she went to counseling.

No she did not name the guy at all in therapy. So lying or just mistaken?

Her therapist note said four boys, she claimed that was wrong, there were two in the room and four at the party, now her lawyer says there was a girl there, and they have identified only 5 people....

Hmmm... what to believe?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, he has been questioned on this subject “under penalty of felony” and advised today that he will be there Monday to testify before the committee.

I didn’t know that he has been questioned under oath on these allegations. I’ll give that a look.

The accuser has refused to be interviewed and will not be there Monday.

Which is a lawyerly way of sidestepping what I wrote.

So... good points

Thank you. I wish you might’ve engaged a little more, but I appreciate it all the same.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it's so important to get this appointment moving, heaven forbid another week goes by.

What are these GOP white men afraid of? More might come out?

 

[Cain]

If, 36 years ago, Kavanaugh did do the things Ford alleges, and he is lying about it today, then I think it's only fair that we confirm him anyway because Democrats can suck it.

 

[Bob001]

Yes, I understand the presumption of innocence is a concept for criminal proceedings, but I think the principle holds beyond that. In any type of accusation against a person, should we just assume they are guilty of the accusation or should we give them the benefit of the doubt until we get good evidence?
.....

I repeat, this is a job applicant. We can reject him for any reason or no reason (except federally protected groups, and good luck proving that case). No one is entitled to be a Supreme Court justice, and Trump is not entitled to put anybody he wants on the Court. If we recognize that the accusation is possible, completely apart from Kavanaugh's long history as a right-wing operative and his extremist views on abortion and presidential power, then we don't have to hire him. If there was a rumor that your neighbor was a pedophile, would you leave your toddler alone with him? "Ah, not enough proof, benefit of the doubt, need more evidence," blah, blah, blah. Kavanaugh isn't the only lawyer in the country, or even the only federal judge, or even the only judge on the Federalist Society's approved list. He's already got a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge. There is no necessity to promote him.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If, 36 years ago, Kavanaugh did do the things Ford alleges, and he is lying about it today, then I think it's only fair that we confirm him anyway because Democrats can suck it.

darn straight!
We need a Judge who understands the judicial principle of "Frat-boys will be Frat-boys."

 

[Slings and Arrows]

"Here's an unpopular opinion: I'm actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations."
-- Emily Lindin (Teen Vogue columnist)


Gee, I wonder if Christine Ford has a lifetime subscription.

 

[TofuFighter]

That you should attempt to compare the two is mind-boggling.

It would only be mind boggling if a rational person made that comparison.

 

[Travis]

Oh, you fellas gonna "mansplain" it to me?

Query: how you gonna defend something when defending it requires you to "Shut Up"? Seems like the knucklehead Senator put you into a box.

Thinking she was literally asking for all men to not speak is obtuse at best. She was asking that men stop slandering rape victims and step up to help defend them.

 

[uke2se]

Thinking she was literally asking for all men to not speak is obtuse at best. She was asking that men stop slandering rape victims and step up to help defend them.

But it's easier to misunderstand her. It doesn't require anyone to do any form of self-reflection.

The Trump-era is the era of easy answers to hard questions, isn't it?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I repeat, this is a job applicant. We can reject him for any reason or no reason (except federally protected groups, and good luck proving that case). No one is entitled to be a Supreme Court justice, and Trump is not entitled to put anybody he wants on the Court. If we recognize that the accusation is possible, completely apart from Kavanaugh's long history as a right-wing operative and his extremist views on abortion and presidential power, then we don't have to hire him. If there was a rumor that your neighbor was a pedophile, would you leave your toddler alone with him? "Ah, not enough proof, benefit of the doubt, need more evidence," blah, blah, blah. Kavanaugh isn't the only lawyer in the country, or even the only federal judge, or even the only judge on the Federalist Society's approved list. He's already got a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge. There is no necessity to promote him.

You shouldn't judge people based on runors.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You shouldn't judge people based on runors.

You should if you hire them with the knowledge that you can never fire them.

 

[Belz...]

You shouldn't judge people based on runors.

No but you can judge them based on climors.

 

[The Big Dog]

Okay. I seem to recall you earlier giving one or more of them credit for making statements. Now we appear to be closer to agreement in that, if I’m reading you right, you tacitly acknowledge there’s the further level of testimony - sworn - which I’ve been saying will be somewhat more significant than without. Furthermore, should any of them refuse such a modest request, it would imply his/their initial statement(s) is/are less than compelling.

Which is a lawyerly way of sidestepping what I wrote.

No it is hoisting one on one's own petard