Midterm Elections 2018

[littlejohn]

The sides may be tiptoeing towards each other.

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Monday



Kind of a smart move by Ford's lawyers. What's Grassley gonna do? Refuse to talk? Tell a woman who was just chased out of her home by death threats they can't wait a few more days?

The problem with Ford's lawyers response is it all seems to becoming even more kabuki theater. She wants to testify, then she won't unless there is an FBI investigation first, Grassley calls their bluff, and the they say, OK, she'll testify under certain terms, but can't make it Monday ? I am assuming they gave Grassley their terms - private, public, etc. You can be in DC tonight and testify tomorrow. If Grassley says pick a day, and they say Wednesday, and then say sorry can't make it Wednesday, it all falls apart without a lot of very good explaining about why. Dr Ford, through her attorneys would probably lose all credibility at that point .

I still go by one of my earlier posts. Both sides are so entrenched , I'm not sure it makes a difference.

[littlejohn]

It's relatively confined for Ford as well. 4 people allegedly at a party, her therapist (who has notes), possibly her husband, and possibly the person who administered her polygraph.

The police in a blue state and blue county might very well be under political pressure to get a conviction and could expand way beyond that list. They also could be under political pressure to move slowly.

It'd be far safer to go with the FBI, imo, if you want things done quickly. Your mileage may vary.

I had not heard that the party was limited to only 4 people that night. I have no way of knowing what happened, but my feeble brain doesn't remember a party from my teen years of 3 boys and 1 girl; that's an odd mix to me, but what the hell do I know ? Usually a flow of people in my days. I started college at 17, so part of that year was high school parties and some college . Always a flow of people in and out.

If only 4 though, the FBI or local police could probably wrap up an investigation in a day. Three of the four have already stated they were not at the party, and the event never happened. Assuming (big assumption other than Kavanauch) they were to say the same thing, what are we talking about, 10 minutes a person for those three ? I have no idea what kind of time frame it would take to interview Dr Ford , but I would assume it would be a lot longer trying to get as many details as possible.

[Tom B.]

The problem with Ford's lawyers response is it all seems to becoming even more kabuki theater. She wants to testify, then she won't unless there is an FBI investigation first, Grassley calls their bluff, and the they say, OK, she'll testify under certain terms, but can't make it Monday ? I am assuming they gave Grassley their terms - private, public, etc. You can be in DC tonight and testify tomorrow. If Grassley says pick a day, and they say Wednesday, and then say sorry can't make it Wednesday, it all falls apart without a lot of very good explaining about why. Dr Ford, through her attorneys would probably lose all credibility at that point .

I still go by one of my earlier posts. Both sides are so entrenched , I'm not sure it makes a difference.

If they agree on a day and the format, then Ford backs out or doesn't show absent some pretty substantial justification (e.g., family emergency of some kind, credible threat to her safety, etc.), I think Ford loses capital and it would be harder to begrudge the Committee going forward. I think she and her lawyers know this.

But if McConnell and Grassley are now at risk of losing Murkowski, that means they have no margin for error. If no Ds vote for Kavanaugh, they'd need every other R to get to 50 votes so Pence could break the tie. And we still don't know where Collins and a couple other Rs stand (though I expect they'll fall in line). The point being, with the margin possibly so razor thin, Ford and her team now have a little more leverage to ask for some accommodation.

Yes, there's certainly an element of theater to it. But hey, welcome to DC.

[littlejohn]

To be honest, confidence was lost with the Garland/Gorsuch kerfuffle. I doubt Kavanaugh changes any opinions much. That is if you still had faith after Bush v Gore.

As for opinions on the Supreme Court, I have a healthy skepticism of the Supreme Court's independence with every ruling since FDR's fight with the Supreme Court over his New Deal. There are a host of rulings before that that go down in the history books as monumentally awful enough to shake your belief in the rule of law and civil society. I doubt Kavanaugh will register in the history books 100 years from now.

Packman, stop being such a cynic, heavy sigh, even though you are correct

[littlejohn]

WSJ reporting two sides on a phone call this afternoon negotiating "terms" for testimony. Wouldn't you love to have a recording of that conversation !

I've got to get back to work !

[OldPhiKap]

WSJ reporting two sides on a phone call this afternoon negotiating "terms" for testimony. Wouldn't you love to have a recording of that conversation !

I've got to get back to work !

It will all be reported to the White House, which means it will be leaked later tonight.

Truth.

[Troublemaker]

The sides may be tiptoeing towards each other.

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Monday


Kind of a smart move by Ford's lawyers. What's Grassley gonna do? Refuse to talk? Tell a woman who was just chased out of her home by death threats they can't wait a few more days?

I think so. We'll see, but I think the Rs are going to insist on Monday. Ford's legal team didn't go past Grassley's 10am Friday deadline, leaving open the option to still testify on Monday.

The consensus seems to be that Ford / the Ds need Ford to testify. And so the question becomes: is that need greater than the need for the Rs to move back the hearing at Ford's request?

[littlejohn]

[QUOTE=duke79;1090234]

The real tragedy in this whole mess, to me, is that the way it is being handled, has made it even harder for victims to come forward. Who wants to deal with this circus, even if the interviews were held in private, which is her option ? For years I have supported a shelter for battered women and children. When my wife and I recently updated our wills, the shelter was included as part of our estate planning. All our kids are 4 legged, so other than finding a good home for them, we thought this would be a good use of the money. I would encourage anyone else to think about something like this if able.

Somewhat ironic that you posted this message today. I am participating in the "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" charity benefit tonight in a small city near where I live. It's a national effort (see link: https://www.walkamileinhershoes.org/) that is put on all over the country to raise money for battered and abused women. Men who participate are supposed to walk a mile in women's high heels (not a comfortable exercise for most men, if you can find a pair of high heels that will fit your feet). My wife's law firm is one of the major sponsors, so many of the lawyers, employees and their spouses and friends all walk in the event. The money raised goes to benefit a local charity that deals with battered and abused women. Several hundred people - men and women - walk in it and it's always held on the same night that a street festival is taking place, so there are many spectators.

Duke79, thank you for doing this. A bright spot in the day.

[sagegrouse]

IMHO (where the H went AWOL after a party near Georgetown Prep in the 1980's), Kavanaugh is still in danger of not being confirmed. Trump has his back up, of course, otherwise the FBI would be all over this case, which is a standard procedure if negative info becomes available on any nominee. But Kavanaugh means nothing to the R's; they just want a reliable vote on the Court. I also believe they are scared to death of offending women even more.

I think we will hear a lot from Dr. Ford next week, and she will be very credible. Then we will see how the nomination develops.

[Tom B.]

I think so. We'll see, but I think the Rs are going to insist on Monday. Ford's legal team didn't go past Grassley's 10am Friday deadline, leaving open the option to still testify on Monday.

The consensus seems to be that Ford / the Ds need Ford to testify. And so the question becomes: is that need greater than the need for the Rs to move back the hearing at Ford's request?

CNN quotes a source as saying they don't have a deal yet, but they're still working towards an agreement. Evidently Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, was scheduled to be on Rachel Maddow tonight, but canceled that interview in an effort to turn down the temperature a bit.

A source familiar with the conference call held between Senate Judiciary aides and Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys said the accuser’s legal team laid out some of its stipulations for testifying before the committee.

One of the chief requests from Ford is that the hearing not happen on Monday.

“She was not willing to do Monday,” the source said.

One show of good faith, the source said, was that Ford’s attorneys have canceled cable news interviews for the evening. That shows all sides are working toward crafting an agreement for the testimony to happen, the source said."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...a3942883140883

[ncexnyc]

My offer to testify on Monday was rejected. I was only asking for a 6 pack of craft beer, a bag of Ruffles, and some chili queso dip.

[jjredickrules]

IMHO (where the H went AWOL after a party near Georgetown Prep in the 1980's)

Well hey there, sir. Maybe my father found it while attending Prep in the 80s. Or maybe one of his two brothers that went there in the 80s found it. Maybe my grandfather found it while visiting his alma mater. It sure wasn’t there when my brother and I were there this past decade.

^This kinda points to something important here somewhat related to the midterms. People will naturally tend to believe those they identify with. I’d say pretty confidently that more women identify with someone who has gone through a traumatic experience (either themselves or a close friend/family) than my case of “also attended elitist all male High school”. I agree with those who have said this will drive turnout from women. If Kav gets confirmed through a quick and shady process, I’d take a pie bet the Dems take the Senate. If Kav isn’t confirmed, the open SCOTUS seat will make this all a wash. Conservatives, even with no connections to the Republican Party itself, want a conservative Justice.

As you can tell, I have a bit more ties to this than the average person. I appreciate the very insightful and unbiased discussion here. Every other outlet has people opining something click baity, so it’s nice to get news and logical interpretations. I hope I didn’t say anything off the rails and, Mr Sage, I found your joke more funny than offensive, don’t worry.

Last thing I’ll add: Prep has a lot of similarities to Duke IMHO (where the H is alive and well, thankyouverrymuch). Having gone to both I’ve definitely heard people talk about them in similar ways and have seen some similarities myself.

[sagegrouse]

Well hey there, sir. Maybe my father found it while attending Prep in the 80s. Or maybe one of his two brothers that went there in the 80s found it. Maybe my grandfather found it while visiting his alma mater. It sure wasn’t there when my brother and I were there this past decade.

^This kinda points to something important here somewhat related to the midterms. People will naturally tend to believe those they identify with. I’d say pretty confidently that more women identify with someone who has gone through a traumatic experience (either themselves or a close friend/family) than my case of “also attended elitist all male High school”. I agree with those who have said this will drive turnout from women. If Kav gets confirmed through a quick and shady process, I’d take a pie bet the Dems take the Senate. If Kav isn’t confirmed, the open SCOTUS seat will make this all a wash. Conservatives, even with no connections to the Republican Party itself, want a conservative Justice.

As you can tell, I have a bit more ties to this than the average person. I appreciate the very insightful and unbiased discussion here. Every other outlet has people opining something click baity, so it’s nice to get news and logical interpretations. I hope I didn’t say anything off the rails and, Mr Sage, I found your joke more funny than offensive, don’t worry.

Last thing I’ll add: Prep has a lot of similarities to Duke IMHO (where the H is alive and well, thankyouverrymuch). Having gone to both I’ve definitely heard people talk about them in similar ways and have seen some similarities myself.

Don't worry. Joking about the lost H in IMHO is my shtick here. I have no connection to Prep, but I lived in Bethesda from the '70s through the 90's. My kids graduated from public HS (WJ).

[littlejohn]

Do any of our resident lawyers know how this works ? I read that Dr Ford herself released part of her therapist's notes , as a way of backing up her story. Does this open up the Senate to request a copy of all her therapist's notes ?? I know the Senate doesn't seem to even be following their own rulebook these days, but wondered if any our legal types knew how this would be dealt with.

Seems the latest news was Ford's attorney saying she would only answer questions from the Senate panel, not an outside attorney, and wants to testify last. I can't imagine why Grassley would agree to either of those terms. An outside attorney gives the Rs cover, and a potential swing vote, in Collins of Maine, had already suggested this approach as a way to try to take the politics out of it.

Seems, and I emphasize seems, that Dr Ford's side would rather fight in the political arena, and does not want to testify under oath, being questioned by an outside attorney.

How would it work with Kavanaugh testifying first ? Testify to what exactly, if Dr Ford hasn't given testimony yet ?

Lastly, pushing this off to next Thursday is no big deal to me, other than the obvious problem of cutting into my work time. If - IF - Kavanaugh is confirmed, he would start the term one week late. Big whoop. As I mentioned earlier though, if she bails on the next date, she's toast. They will proceed without her.

A fascinating event to watch. Better pop an extra large bag of popcorn !

[Reilly]

My offer to testify on Monday was rejected. I was only asking for a 6 pack of craft beer ...

If you share some of it with devildeac, he'll pretend to listen as long as you'd like to talk ...

[dudog84]

Optics are getting worse for the Rs. If you watch the short video in the article, a young woman says she has a letter signed by over 1000 alumna of Ford's alma mater who say they believe her because it rings true to their own experiences. While it has nothing to do with the specifics of this case, again it's bad optics.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...8lF?li=BBnb7Kz

[JasonEvans]

Optics are getting worse for the Rs. If you watch the short video in the article, a young woman says she has a letter signed by over 1000 alumna of Ford's alma mater who say they believe her because it rings true to their own experiences. While it has nothing to do with the specifics of this case, again it's bad optics.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...8lF?li=BBnb7Kz

Meh... finding people who will write letters to support one side or the other doesn't move my needle all that much. Frankly, it is not all that hard to do and I'm betting none of these people have any first hand knowledge about the actual events of that night. I mean, 1000 people signed the letter for Ford... how many of those folks could have picked her out of a lineup a week ago, maybe 10%?

-Jason "both sides could probably get 10 million signatures in a week with an online petition... means nothing" Evans

[bedeviled]

Question: Do high-powered law firms have actual client advocates to help clients through cases? Or, do they just expect the client to address their own needs and for the lawyers to know how to act in the client's best interest? (I don't expect lawyers to be psychologists)

I re-read things now, taking out "Ford wants" and "Kavanaugh would prefer" and simply replacing such phrases with 'Dems' and 'Reps' instead. Like others here, I think the two individuals are simply pawns in political gamesmanship, with recommendations made using unpure agendas. Ford's needs apparently ceased to be a concern when info was leaked, forcing her to report on a traumatic experience which she was unwilling or not ready to address "out loud." I have relatively less sympathy for Kav's position because he has placed himself as a public figure. But, based on his reported experience, he, too, wouldn't have expected this degree of personal turmoil in order to provide public service. Certainly, neither one wanted to be part of this circus, which keeps being escalated.

Lots of intense and confusing psychological pressures - is anyone on their "team" supposed to look out for them even if it means losing the case?

[OldPhiKap]

Do any of our resident lawyers know how this works ? I read that Dr Ford herself released part of her therapist's notes , as a way of backing up her story. Does this open up the Senate to request a copy of all her therapist's notes ?? I know the Senate doesn't seem to even be following their own rulebook these days, but wondered if any our legal types knew how this would be dealt with.

Not sure the Senate follows formal rules of evidence — their manner of questioning sure ain’t cricket. But if the notes are authenticated (proven to be real) it may not be hearsay if offered for the purpose of showing that she brought up his name years ago as opposed to offering the document for the alleged truth of the statements in the notes. Calling the doctor, of course, is the better evidence.

I think they take all documents offered for the most part, for the record if nothing else.

Question: Do high-powered law firms have actual client advocates to help clients through cases? Or, do they just expect the client to address their own needs and for the lawyers to know how to act in the client's best interest? (I don't expect lawyers to be psychologists)

Lots of intense and confusing psychological pressures - is anyone on their "team" supposed to look out for them even if it means losing the case?

The lawyer generally counsels the client on how to achieve the goals that the client wants. Part of that counseling involves discussing alternative outcomes and the positives/negatives of them. What we do is part amateur psychologist.

I do not know if megalaw has trained psychological counselors, but in a big case some lawyer or paralegal ends up doing the hand-holding through the process. Litigation is emotionally difficult.

[dudog84]

Meh... finding people who will write letters to support one side or the other doesn't move my needle all that much. Frankly, it is not all that hard to do and I'm betting none of these people have any first hand knowledge about the actual events of that night. I mean, 1000 people signed the letter for Ford... how many of those folks could have picked her out of a lineup a week ago, maybe 10%?

-Jason "both sides could probably get 10 million signatures in a week with an online petition... means nothing" Evans

Did you even watch the video?

First off, I wrote that it has nothing to do with the specifics of this case. Even if 90% of drunken teenage boys are attempted rapists (which I do not mean to suggest), that does not mean Kavanaugh is one.

Furthermore, I don’t think it will upset anyone on the board for me to point out that the Rs skew as an older and whiter demographic. It’s a fact, not an opinion. So when a group of young women stand before a microphone and say that this is their experience and suggest they are not listened to, and those young women look like that demographic’s daughters and granddaughters…yeah, it’s bad optics.