Connect with us

Opinions

If Ford is unwilling to testify soon, they should proceed with confirmation

Published

on

If Ford is unwilling to testify soon they should proceed with confirmation

This is supposed to be a moment that was 36-years in the making. After not accusing her alleged attacker around the time of the attack, nor mentioning the incident to anyone for three decades, next Monday should be Christine Blasey Ford’s time to deliver a certain level of justice to the boy who derailed her life in high school.

At this point, that moment appears to be put on indefinite hold. Her lawyer has asked the impossible before she’ll testify – an FBI investigation from a Justice Department that has already made it clear it’s not their responsibility nor jurisdiction to investigate.

Here’s an important note before I proceed: I do not doubt Ford’s account. Whether or not it was Brett Kavanaugh who attacked her will likely never be known with a certainty, but she seems sincere in the details. Perhaps it was Kavanaugh. Perhaps she’s inserting Kavanaugh into a story for political reasons. Nobody knows for sure other than Ford, and even she is unclear about times and places surrounding the alleged incident. Regardless, I am proceeding with the belief that a young Christine Blasey was sexually assaulted in a way close to how she describes.

Now we come to the problem. Because Senator Dianne Feinstein waited so long, allegedly at Ford’s request and not because the timing was absolutely perfect for derailing Kavanaugh’s confirmation, we’re stuck with a very tight window. It’s unfortunate that Ford is now in a position to have six days to prepare for the brightest spotlight she could ever imagine. She’s going in knowing her testimony could have an effect on the abortion industry, gun owner rights, presidential privileges, and a judge’s lifetime worth of issues important to millions of Americans.

That’s if she testifies. If she doesn’t testify, the confirmation must proceed. Something as important as a Supreme Court justice’s seat cannot be held up over an uncorroborated accusation. Ford may be credible. Her story may be true. But if our government processes are proven to be so fragile that an accusation is enough to fundamentally shift the balance of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, then we’re in much bigger trouble than most people know.

This shouldn’t have to be said, but I’ll go ahead and say it. There have been ample opportunities to bring this to light. I’ve never suffered from the type of assault that she describes so I would not presume to understand the emotional stress it can put on people for decades, but the timing of this accusation and subsequent unwillingness to testify seems more like a stalling technique by the Democrats than a distraught victim who finally found the courage to come forward days before her attacker was made one of the most powerful men in the world.

I hope she testifies. It will give the Senate and America an opportunity to understand either the man who would be a Justice or the party trying desperately to stop him. But if she doesn’t testify, the confirmation must move forward.

Image via DailyMail.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Public Citizen

    September 18, 2018 at 9:05 pm

    Allegedly, she is demanding a “full FBI Investigation”, which the FBI has twice stated it will not do.
    I say, let’s give her what she is demanding by the ones in authority ~ordering~ the FBI to perform a complete investigation, of this Ford lunatic.

    • Frank

      September 19, 2018 at 5:31 pm

      she’s a fraud and also I wouldn’t use the public it means:

      Public
      “That vast multitude, which includes the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous, who … do not stop to analyze, but are governed by appearance and general impressions.” JAW. Colleens Co. v. FM Past Co., (D.C. Pa.) 14 F.2d 614;
      Ballentines Law Dictionary 1969 3rd Edition

  2. Frank

    September 19, 2018 at 5:27 pm

    If Mrs Ford a pussy hat wearing activist was smart she wouldn’t testify as she had motive to accuse Kavanaugh, her parents lost a foreclosure case before Brett’s mom and now here is the pay-off her attorney is paid by Soros group just like a called it. All the accusers Mrs Ford and these Senators and Representatives should all be charged with conspiracy and false statements before congress: 18 U.S.C. §35. Imparting or conveying false information, and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned

Published

on

Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned

When news broke today that Ed and Brian Krassenstein from #Resistance fame had their Twitter accounts permanently banned, reactions from both sides were predictable. Those on the left pointed at the event and said, “see there’s no Twitter conspiracy against conservatives.” Meanwhile, conservatives’ reactions were mixed between thinking it was Twitter’s attempt to balance things out so they don’t get sued all the way up to rejoicing that the site may have finally learned its lesson.

None of this is true. According to Twitter, they were banned for using bots and paid engagement.

“The Twitter Rules apply to everyone,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement. “Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited. Engaging in these behaviors will result in permanent suspension from the service.”

While the brothers will go down in Twitter history as a rare example of prominent progressives getting banned, the reality is their removals from the site were economic. That’s rarely the case for conservatives who get banned for hateful speech or whatever the latest label is for telling people to “learn to code.” In fact, I don’t recall a single conservative getting banned for paid engagement or bot use. It happens, I’m sure, but as far as I can recall it hasn’t been the reason for any major political accounts to get the ax.

Either way, I oppose this and nearly all bannings that aren’t the result of spam, illegal activity like doxxing, spreading malware, or porn. If they want to stop bots and paid promotions, they should be catching these accounts and sending them stern messages. They can reduce their visibility. But if someone artificially inflates their engagement without using Twitter ads, they can and should be dealt with in ways that fall short of getting banned. Same holds true for most “hateful speech” that seems to unfairly target conservatives. Again, as long as the speech used is not breaking the law, it should be allowed.

Or, Twitter could simply establish that it’s a content site and not simply a platform. They would lose their protections, but at least they would be in line with the letter of the law. As it stands, they get platform protections while acting to police activities that are against the notion of free speech and therefore should not be allowed to continue getting platform protections.

Speech is free or it isn’t.

Comparing the Krassenstein’s permanent suspensions to any of the recent prominent conservative account suspensions is invalid. They weren’t banned for what they said. They were banned for bots and paid promotion. Conservatives are still being targeted.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

‘Star Trek: Picard’ looks like it’s going to be a social justice warrior’s take on the future

Published

on

Star Trek Picard looks like its going to be a social justice warriors take on the future

Gene Roddenberry had one rule for the Star Trek franchise. The future had to be a perfect utopia. In his vision, man had evolved to a point where it had no character flaws: no malice, no greed, no secrets. There wasn’t supposed to be a Section 31, the dark NSA-like secret group. War was to be avoided at all costs. Even conflicts between Starfleet personnel had to be manufactured to pass muster; someone had to be mind-controlled for there to be fight between officers.

After his death, it didn’t take long for his rule to get broken again and again.

Perhaps this was a good thing, at least from the perspective of a modern audience that prefers to see internal conflict over pure humans operating in an impure galaxy. After all, his vision may have launched the series, but the franchise hit its stride after his death. Or did it?

The Star Trek franchise has never been a true blockbuster, at least not in a world with Star Wars and the MCU. It has a strong following and its winning people over from generations who were born after Captain Jean Luc Picard’s The Next Generation wrapped up on television to start making movies. But its ability to stay relevant has relied heavily on shifting storylines and new perspectives that are a far cry from Roddenberry’s original ideas.

None of this is necessarily a bad thing, but the upcoming CBS show, Star Trek: Picard, threatens to not only take the franchise into unexplored territory but also fundamentally change the character many of us have grown to love. And if my hunch is right, they’re going to do it by turning arguably the most beloved character in the franchise (sorry Kirk and Spock) into a social justice warrior.

Hints of a different type of Picard story have been swirling around the show since its inception. Patrick Stewart said he wanted this 20-year-older version of the Picard to be very different from the warrior-explorer-diplomat that we’ve admired for decades. Considering the direction he and CBS have both gone in recent years, that gave me the feeling they were going to have a betrayed Picard get drawn back in to right wrongs and fight for the little guy, as any good social justice warrior should. Now that they’ve released a teaser, my hunch has only been reinforced.

I hope I like it. but I have a very nasty feeling that I won’t. I have a horrible sense that they’re going to ruin a great character and tear down Roddenberry’s legacy for the sake of being socially conscious and progressively preachy. We’ll see.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Pelosi’s endgame strategy: Impeach Trump during general election season

Published

on

Pelosis endgame strategy Impeach Trump during general election season

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been playing a balancing act for the past few months. On one hand, she has to stop her caucus from becoming too zealous about impeaching President Trump, fearing the same public backlash the GOP received in 1998 during impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. On the other hand, she needs to keep the specter of impeachment alive so she doesn’t start getting attacked by the radical Democratic base who want the President out immediately.

But lost in the mix is the speculation that Pelosi is fully prepared to impeach the President, just not yet. She wants to bring impeachment and all the mud that will be flung at the President as a result during the heart of general election season.

Evidence of this is all circumstantial but compelling. In a closed-door meeting with committee heads yesterday, she instructed her team to keep up the pressure through investigation after investigation. This would normally not be enough to appease impeachment hawks like Maxine Waters and others, but their clear support for the strategy is an indicator that they’ve been promised vindication at a better time than now. Otherwise, there’s enough support for impeachment among the base for them to continue beating the drum louder and possibly even call for Pelosi’s ouster.

It’s also conspicuous that lower members of the Democratic totem pole haven’t gone after Pelosi, including known antagonists like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.

Pelosi knows her time is short if things don’t go her way quickly. She was able to gather support from opposition within her caucus by promising to only serve as Speaker for two years. But she has no intention of stepping down if Democrats retain control of the House of Representatives through the 2020 election. Instead, she intends to build her credentials by strategically beating the President, not only on the political arena but in the 2020 election itself. No, she’s not running, but if she launches her impeachment hearings in a way that can earn her credit for the Democratic nominee to win, she will have solidified her seat as Speaker for as long as she wants to stay there.

It’s a huge gamble. Depending on how the impeachment proceedings go in the eyes of the public, she could do enough damage to help kick the President out of the Oval Office. On the other hand, she could seal her own fate if the President wins as a result of sympathy he’s able to garner from the political move of a well-timed impeachment proceeding. It has the potential to backfire spectacularly if the public sees it as a dirty trick, one that could even cost the Democrats control of the House.

But in reality she doesn’t have much to lose. If she impeaches now when it won’t affect the election or if she chooses not to impeach at all, there’s a very good chance she’ll be held to her word to step down as Speaker in 2021. If she delivers the White House to the Democrats, she’ll be locked in her Speaker seat indefinitely.

This should infuriate Democrats more than Republicans, especially the growing radical wing of the party. Their goal, as stated by the Justice Democrats, is to take over the party from within. But Pelosi’s moves are not only meant to harm Republicans but also increase the power over the Democratic Party held by the establishment.

We may be witnessing the swampiest tactics every put on display from Capitol Hill as Speaker Pelosi plots the takedown of a sitting President. Some say she’s impotent, but clearly she’s a viper with plenty of bite left.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending