It is a scenario put forward by Erick Erickson
https://www.redstate.com/martin_a_k...s-will-try-trick-kavanaugh-testifying-first./
Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)
- Thread starter Dylan
- Start date
- Status
https://www.redstate.com/martin_a_k...s-will-try-trick-kavanaugh-testifying-first./
Someone else. It would be consistent with what we've seen so far. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. What would you think if Kavanaugh was your guy, and the other side was rolling this scenario out supported by the power of all that Fox media 24/7? You'd probably be looking for something like this as a scenario, I suspect.
He will be voted up or down, no matter what happens. Lots of Nevertrumpers seem to be coming back to the fold as this rolls out. Kavanaugh is not a Trump guy, he's as establishment as it is possible to be, and there's a lot of "there but for the grace of God" going around amongst the establishment GOP. Whether you're Trump or Reagan, it doesn't matter. The treatment from the opposition is the same in the year 2018. That's the lesson. A big part of this is making the process so punishing that no sane person would accept an appointment from Trump to SCOTUS, or anything else. That's the meaning of "any means necessary." There's more after if the measures don't achieve the desired result (see James Hodgkinson.)
You've had to pull out HS yearbook signatures and repressed memories to have anything at all to fling at Kav. I still think he'll be sitting in the court come October.
We'll see.
TheBigIguana
Player Valuation: £100m
I'd like for the Supreme Court to go back to being something where it was a matter of "our you qualified or not?" The amount of politics is disastrous and defeats the purpose of life time appointments. But ultimately the GOP has no leg to stand on after what McConnell did to the Garland nomination. There just isn't any way to complain about someone else's behavior after doing something so blatantly against the constitution like that.
Not really as I’m unlear what it would achieve.
Not least as Grassley has the power to invite Kavaugh back for a rebuttal - think I read somewhere Thomas went first, then Anita Hill then Thomas again.
The rebuttal and evidence don't matter. It is all about the theatre and what can be spun in the media at this point. Anything to maximize pressure before the vote is taken.
Just curious, do you want him to take the seat?
Perhaps you can walk me through it as confess I fail to see how even the theatre would be productive - such a farce I think would make it far easier for Collins to dismiss the claims than if Dr Ford gave her testimony as scheduled.
Yes I do.
It's a cold business designed to pick off the necessary votes from Kav and to increase the unpleasantness while slow walking the process in hopes that something else will drop. They also hope that the Republicans will overreact and get caught doing something reactive they can spin as ugly and anti-woman. The attorneys for Ford, or whoever is calling the shots for them are the people in control until she shows. She can not show because unfair conditions, or show and refuse to respond to anything or anyone she doesn't feel comfortable with. It's all still in play.
Agree it is all still in play but personally think Dr Ford would be best served by just going in and telling her account. I sometimes think people can overthink things with the 3D chess - see a certain Ed Whelan
Agree it is all still in play but personally think Dr Ford would be best served by just going in and telling her account. I sometimes think people can overthink things with the 3D chess - see a certain Ed Whelan
Yep. Whelan stepped in it for sure.
The offer is public testimony under oath, before Kav, questioned by an experienced sex crimes prosecutor. No Senatorial bloviation scheduled.
We'll see if she takes that offer. I think that her response will be the most disruptive thing they can cook up.
Dr. Ford would best be served by telling her account. She will have to stand by the truth of that testimony. That plank is long if there's any doubt at all she can give credible testimony under oath against the response from a brilliant lawyer and his entire political party. That's not what she signed up for, I bet. They have to shift the focus back on Kav and his untruthfulness (hence the specific questions on apparently unrelated topics). The proposed scenario is a way to do it.
Perhaps not surprisingly I believe the “stand by the truth of that testimony” is less of an issue than “response from his entire politcal party” and I say this not specifying a politcal party. I personally don’t think I’d have the courage to give testimony about such a subject even if I knew it was the absolute truth and could recall every detail clearly - especially as I am cynical enough to believe it wouldn’t make a jot of difference to most senators votes.
So you are ok with someone who is accused of sexual misconduct then?
Or do you think she is lying?
Or is it much like the GOP members who have been vocal to say that it doesnt matter whether she is or not.
Thats really what the issue is. Either she is lying or she isnt either way how can a party stand behind someone who is accused. Especially a candidate whos big excuse was on fox news that he couldnt have done it because he was a virgin until he was in his twenties because groping and molesting means you are no longer a virgin to him i guess.
The more he and his friends talk the more dubious they sound even before anyone has decided it should see an investigation or a court.
Wouldnt the party who always talks about moral compass and faith want to swerve this type of scandal. Oh yeah i fogot becuase the democrats are pushing back you defo want him now just to get one over on them
Her claims are risible. She'll need to make a better case to convince me. Until the actual vote takes place for confirmation, we'll get this:
- Status