Dr Christine Blasey Ford I salute you

[Love2dance]

That's it really. It must have been incredibly hard to stand up and do what she has done.

I don't know what the outcome will be (I've seen enough unjust results in sex assault trials through my work not to assume anything) but I hope she comes out of this knowing she did the right thing

As for her comment about the forensic interview, yeah an interview could have been useful, but that's a back peddle - an attempt to shift blame for the utter lack of an investigation to Feinstein for referring a lawyer who ordered a polygraph instead.

Thing is IMO, the GOP has its head so far up Trump's rectum, they didn't ask for a forensic interview because they don't want to know.

Isn't true that all Kavanagh has to do is call in the FBI and say go investigate because he has nothing to hide, and if it's a lie then Dr Ford would go to jail? Instead he's straight out of the gate frothing. I don't get it!

Ah shouty angry Brett.... even if they confirm him, this (the allegation and his response) can't be playing well for the midterms...?

for Dr Ford. Absolutely awesome bravery and integrity from her.
How very much easier it would be for her never to have to stand up in front of the whole country and talk about this.

Oh no Iwunderwhy. Trump has to ask for an investigation. If Kavanaugh wanted one he could insist, but some of the stories coming out about his more recent behavior indicate why he doesn't want people digging into his drunken closet.

Plus, the whole issue about whether he lied about his role in promoting torture at Gitmo --- if the vote is delayed til after November, the GOP may not be in position to get him approved. Further he could be investigated at the Senate behest then.

Dems may or may not take the Senate as well as the House, but that's a maybe.

If Ford lied under oath before Congress -- well, that's the same as it would be for Kavanaugh, but harder to prove unless they found evidence that George Soros, bogeyman of the rightwing, handed her marked dollar bills to perjure herself and was spied upon by witnesses who saw him hand her a briefcase of cash on a foggy street corner in Menlo Park. But, I digress....

The issue is there is a paper trail and witnesses for Kavanaugh's behavior, but the politics of the GOP says "don't look, we want to ban abortion to keep those right wing Christian dollars coming in.

There is no paper trail for Ford. The senate could choose not to believe her, but prosecuting is harder.

I'm still waiting for him to address her actual allegations...

Could do without seeing Kavanaugh's wife and supporters crying in the background.

Is he sobbing, sniffing and angry because he's innocent? Or guilty? He certainly doesn't seem to be able to hold himself together. At all.

It's perfectly possible to list loads of times when you've done things, behaved well, people who like you but be guilty on that one occasion.

Looks like it would be one of those her word against his if it weren't for the machinations of the US political and legal system.

I believe her.

But surely without a criminal trial of some kind the only outcome can be that they find in his favour here? Otherwise surely due process hasn’t been followed and the implications of that going forward are pretty scary.

Agreed. The best most realistic outcome would be that the decision on whether he is elected to the SC is delayed.

There is a named eyewitness, Mark Judge, the GOP has refused to call.

Mark Judge wrote a biography naming his drinking until blind buddy Brant (or something) Kavanaugh.

The GOP has refused to call him, and he's doing the Trump defense -- "It's not my fault! B_hes they lie, and Hillary too!!"

Should tell people all they need to know.

What I mean is I agree there are concerns about due process, but the concerns apply just as much to the failure to consider other witnesses, so a finding in his favour would be unacceptable and flawed.

The bit about the FBI looks pretty suss. The whole republican attitude has been to rush it through. Every d.a, lawyer, judge etc knows time needs to be spent finding and questioning witnesses, obtaining evidence etc to build a case. The republicans have been "hurry along, nothing to see here!"

That’s not enough though, is it.

Believe me, for her sake i wish it was but there has to be some actual evidence.

I don’t understand enough about how these things work, so maybe I am missing something.

I just find it bizarre that the other women and this guy who was allegedly in the room don’t HAVE to be called before this thing can be concluded.

It's not a criminal case, Cardigan. It's a job interview for a lifetime appointment.

IF the GOP were acting ethically, witnesses would be called. BUT they're not and haven't been acting ethically on judicial appointments for a very long time.

They're stacking the courts.

I know, and that’s my point!

I don’t think she should be allowed to do this in this realm without it having first been through the criminal process.

I say that as a survivor. I believe her.
But surely we can’t circumvent process like this.

There’s no win here that i can see, and that makes me so very sad.

Makes me angry but I'm supposed to be watching my blood pressure....

I work with youth and vulnerable people. My criminal record check includes cautions, charges and every police contact, not just convictions. It's understandable that in a system where most sexual assaults go unconvicted, any possible assault, even those with reasonable doubt, should be treated as a red line.

This is a lifetime position. It requires a higher standard.

Go Mr Durbin!

I can’t agree Terry.

I can’t agree that “any possible assault, even with reasonable doubt, should be treated as a red line.”

I get why you feel that way (BELIEVE me) but surely anyone can wreck anyone’s life with a malicious allegation if we go down that road?

I say again though: in this case I believe her.

This isn't a criminal case where the standard would be proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is a high bar to reach.

This is the appointment of a Supreme Court judge. In my view, when you are choosing someone to sit in judgement on others they do need to be held to a very high standard and if you have any kind of doubt that they are fit for that role then you cannot take the risk of appointing them.

Why is he entitled to a job?

Why is he entitled to a job without a full background check?

It's a job interview, and note that Neil Gorsuch got through without a single allegation of sexual assault even though his seat was the one the GOP stole from Obama.

His life isn’t wrecked. He has had a successful career, I’m sure he’s very comfortably off. He may not get to be a Supreme Court judge, but that’s not a right, it’s a privilege, and you only get it if your past life stands up to scrutiny.

He is such a weaselling, belligerent, lying piece of shit. You only need to look at the way he is responding to questions compared to Dr Ford. This is just disgraceful all round. What an absolute farce.