Lost in the accusations that Republicans didn't believe Christine Blasey Ford for terrible reasons is the evidence that Diane Feinstein didn't believe her. Had she thought the accusation strong and credible, she would have brought it out sooner and disposed of Kavanaugh's nomination in the cradle.
Or if you prefer the narrative that says she did believe Ford but thought that a last-minute release, including breaking her confidentiality was tactically better to scotch the nomination, then it was Feinstein who had contempt for the woman, to use her in this way.
I think those are the two choices.
I don't know why I keep expecting people to be consistent and fair.
11 comments:
I think Feinstein's delay was tactical. The Democrats wanted to delay the Kavanaugh vote until after the November elections because they hoped to retake the Senate. Their usual shenanigans weren't working because the Republicans weren't resorting to their usual failure theater that they had done for the past ten years. Ford's story (concocted with her FBI attorney friend, the same one she coached on polygraph tests and who helped to write her letter) was a sham all along and the Democrats new it. They it was their Hail Mary to block Kavanaugh.
ChiFi appeared to follow up pretty much all of her comments on Ford's allegations and actions with "I don't know". A tic, or a tell?
Been trying to make this point, but no one seems to care. Feinstein is a piece of work.
I would have thought a fully concocted hoax was impossible, but I now consider it at least possible. I believed Kavanaugh was likely guilty of something when I first heard it and groaned, though I also believed it was likely exaggerated or misinterpreted and likely small potatoes in reality. When he denied it, it only partly swung me in the direction of "nothing even happened," because lots of people deny accusations at least initially. I expected that some details would come out, that it would become more ambiguous, that he was there but didn't go upstairs, wasn't that drunk, whatever.
Knowing what I know about memory, it didn't significantly undermine CBF's basic claim, even though she couldn't remember details. That happens. But I also thought such things would and should undermine testimony. Only as the details emerged and it was clear that her story was actually quite weak, with recent changes as well as remote ones, but Democrats were treating it as an increasingly strong story did I swing entirely into the Kavanaugh column. Even if something underneath it was true, it was obvious it wasn't strong evidence and could never be. Plus that thread running underneath, "If Senator Feinstein had thought it clearly true, ti would have come out in July. Therefore, it has to be a kitchen-sink attempt at the last minute." This also speaks out against it being a crafted conspiracy, as it would have been tighter if it were. It could still be a hastily-cobbled conspiracy, I suppose.
No one ever asked if she had read Mark Judge's book, which was a big miss on the part of the Republicans. Uncertain memories can be easily influenced by such things, and she was very likely to have read it. I read Kookooland because it was written by a girl a year behind me at Central, even though I don't remember her.
You're just another Dr. Pangloss, AVI. THAT'S why.
I'm with Boxty on his interpretation.
Wow, I need to proof read my comments. I just read this on another blog than lends more support for this being an orchestrated Democrat hoax:
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Tuesday said he "strongly suspects" Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) was behind the leak of an explosive letter that almost derailed Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2018/10/the-cotton-theory-of-the-ford-leak-overlooks-feinstein-speculation-about-friends.html
I still think it's possible he groped some woman in high school or college, but I don't think it's disqualifying. I've got touchy-feely female coworkers and it always makes me feel uncomfortable and slightly irritated that if I did or said half the stuff then I could be fired by HR.
Concocted with malice aforethought.
Nice to hear from you again, Roy!
Hi, AVI. I'm here every day. It's just that I don't find much that I disagree with. This is a comfort stop for me.
This may be naive, but, much as I don't care for Feinstein, my guess is she kept it confidential because she was asked to, and another member of her circle leaked it. At that point she was happy to exploit it publicly.
@ T99 - that is a third possibility, thank you. She could have shared it with the FBI or the Judiciary committee, though. Unless she didn't trust them - which is possible.
If someone from her office leaked it, or she shared it with someone who wasn't discreet, then that would be a different problem, and I think smaller.
Post a Comment