So at this point a few things are clear. Kavanaugh is upfront about the whole thing, he is willing to testify and risk perjury if he is lying. Ford, on the other hand, is playing political games, demanding no questions from Kavanaugh's defense, reversing the entire process and demanding Kavanaugh testify *first*, demanding an FBI investigation that will never happen before testifying, and so on. This is ever more looking like someone who isn't interested in sharing the truth. These are not serious demands, not even close. Nor do they help to bring the truth to light, quite the opposite. I wouldn't be surprised at this point if these demands were designed to be rejected, so they could cry about how the mean republican nazis won't let them have their show trial.
I kinda agree with this, but she is attempting to protect her character which will be destroyed if she first doesn’t protect herself. It could be compared to Trump wanting to testify before Mueller, but wants to make sure things are covered accordingly before he perjurers himself.
It was fair for them to offer different ways for her to testify, but a person needs to ask, why the hurry?
Kavanaugh using my word vs hers isn’t really up front though.
Usually investigation takes places by the authorities in charge of investigating the matter, and for 30 yr old state crimes, that is literally not the FBI's job. Which is why they aren't going to do it. Her lawyers know this, i'm sure.
It literally is the FBIs job to do background checks. Who else would you think would do that?
They aren't doing it because apparently Trump has to authorize it and he's scared and doesn't want to do that because they might uncover the truth. Trump is lying when he says they don't want to do it. In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to authorize it. Neither does the Senate.
Republicans have politicized the matter. McConnell has said it doesn't matter what she says we're going to confirm Kavanaugh. Grassley has jammed him through everything and set artificial deadlines to ensure Kavanaugh gets confirmed without proper vetting.
Trump has conspired to hide Kavanaugh's records. Trump has also attacked the victim before her testimony and obviously has an agenda to get Kavanaugh confirmed no matter how awful a candidate he is.
Mitch McConnell just said that Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed, indicating there is literally no point to the testimony regardless.
Second of all, it's not up to the FBI to decide, it is up to Trump. And it is not a criminal investigation, so jurisdiction isn't even relevant. Why are we constantly acting like this is a criminal proceeding?? It's not, it's a national job interview. And it's an interview where one side not only allowed the potential nominee to only produce about 10% of his resume, it's also one where they are flat-out telling you they will hire him no matter what.
Also, the right-wing defense of Kavanaugh, over the course of 5 days has gone through these phases:
1.) It never took place 2.) It was too long ago 3.) It wasn't actually assault 4.) So what he was 17 5.) We don't have time to look into it 6.) Maybe it took place and it was someone else.
I mean holy Christ, can we settle on one or two of them and stick with that as the defense??
Also, Professor Ford has not said she won't testify, the details are still being negotiated. They don't want her to show up. They are terrified of it, to the point where it seems likely that the GOP Senators won't even question her themselves, but give the task to a female lawyer from the committee.
Edit: Trump, who was miraculously kept on a leash about this for 3 days, has reverted to the mean. You know, the guy who said he was going to sue all of his accusers during the campaign but then never did so because he was too chickenshit to be deposed.
I imagine her lawyers are looking at the only precedent available in relation to a Supreme Court nomination - when the FBI did indeed investigate a historic sexual abuse claim. If they were asked to investigate I'm sure they would, though I agree it seems extremely unlikely that they will be asked to do so. I think she has recognized that's not going to happen as the investigation is not on her current list of requests (which are still being negotiated). Those are reported as: - Prof Ford will not testify if Judge Kavanaugh is in the room - Judge Kavanaugh must testify first - There can be no appearance before next Thursday - Questions to be posed preferably by senators and not outside counsel - Mark Judge, who is reported to have been a witness to the alleged assault, should be subpoenaed to appear - Agrees to a public hearing but wants limits on the media coverage
I don't think her demands are aimed at preventing her from testifying.
The Thomas accusations were investigated by the FBI because those claims were under the jurisdiction of the FBI. It was a federal employee comitting crimes on government property. And even then, it was conducted at the request of President Bush at the time.
He was investigated and exonerated for those claims, which is another reason guilt-by-accusation is so terrible.
In this case, assuming Trump ordered the FBI to do so, i'm not sure what they are supposed to investigate here. In the Thomas case there was real evidence to look into. Any physical evidence of any sort, assuming any ever existed, is decades lost by this point, and it's safe to say the hunt for witnesses of any sort is already on.
It's a charade, pure and simple. Maybe I could believe it on it's face were it not just one part of a long stream of suggestions for various mockeries of traditional evidence based inquiry into criminal matters.
Not quantifiable or relevant, because Google is an American company that can do whatever it wants. Even if this true, it is completely within the realm of legality. Though "free speech" paragon Jordan Peterson today suggested it was treason, so there is that.
Even discussing the hypothetical manipulation of search results for political reasons shouldn't be tolerated. This sounds like it's worth firing the employees, depending on how serious they were about actually doing this.
That being said, I don't think the discussion of hypothetical manipulation of search results by independent American citizens should make us forget or overlook actual manipulation of social media committed by the agents of a hostile foreign government.
In this case, assuming Trump ordered the FBI to do so, i'm not sure what they are supposed to investigate here.
They know what to do, how to do their jobs.
I'd conjecture that they could take Ford's story and try to pinpoint it to a certain night and a certain house. That house had people who owned the house. There are people that know Kavanaugh's behavior around this time. There are people at the house. etc. Corroborating witnesses, one way or another would expand this beyond Ford and Kavanaugh's story (Judge, a notorious blackout drunk, claims to not remember - he doesn't deny, he uses the "Can't remember" line)
They can search social media or written media such as Judge's book Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk. They can interview Ford's friends and acquaintances such as the one that said she remembered Ford talking about it soon after it happened. Ford reported this to her therapist in 2012, they could go there and see what the therapist says.
No there's no forensics but they can see what written and oral testimony they could get. Maybe there's a note from Ford saying she's making the whole thing up, wouldn't you like to see that? Of course there's not so Republicans don't want an investigation especially if it involves Judge.
I imagine her lawyers are looking at the only precedent available in relation to a Supreme Court nomination - when the FBI did indeed investigate a historic sexual abuse claim. If they were asked to investigate I'm sure they would, though I agree it seems extremely unlikely that they will be asked to do so. I think she has recognized that's not going to happen as the investigation is not on her current list of requests (which are still being negotiated). Those are reported as: - Prof Ford will not testify if Judge Kavanaugh is in the room - Judge Kavanaugh must testify first - There can be no appearance before next Thursday - Questions to be posed preferably by senators and not outside counsel - Mark Judge, who is reported to have been a witness to the alleged assault, should be subpoenaed to appear - Agrees to a public hearing but wants limits on the media coverage
I don't think her demands are aimed at preventing her from testifying.
The Thomas accusations were investigated by the FBI because those claims were under the jurisdiction of the FBI. It was a federal employee comitting crimes on government property. And even then, it was conducted at the request of President Bush at the time.
He was investigated and exonerated for those claims, which is another reason guilt-by-accusation is so terrible.
In this case, assuming Trump ordered the FBI to do so, i'm not sure what they are supposed to investigate here. In the Thomas case there was real evidence to look into. Any physical evidence of any sort, assuming any ever existed, is decades lost by this point, and it's safe to say the hunt for witnesses of any sort is already on.
It's a charade, pure and simple. Maybe I could believe it on it's face were it not just one part of a long stream of suggestions for various mockeries of traditional evidence based inquiry into criminal matters.
Obviously there won't be physical evidence, but that doesn't mean you can't do any investigation. For starters you can talk to people at the party and find out whether there were any references to an assault in the immediate aftermath, e.g. in letters to friends or diary entries.
Not quantifiable or relevant, because Google is an American company that can do whatever it wants. Even if this true, it is completely within the realm of legality. Though "free speech" paragon Jordan Peterson today suggested it was treason, so there is that.
The argument that because something *is* allowed, that it *should* be allowed and criticism of it is meaningless is absurd. What Google does is highly relevant because nobody has more control over the flow of information then they do. It's not even close. An incredibly large amount of political speech and expression is filtered through one of these tech giants to some degree.
If you want to live in a world where a few unaccountable and largely secretive companies can manipulate public opinion, enforce their ideological view of the world, and banish people and facts down the memory hole if and when they so choose, more power to you.
Not quantifiable or relevant, because Google is an American company that can do whatever it wants. Even if this true, it is completely within the realm of legality. Though "free speech" paragon Jordan Peterson today suggested it was treason, so there is that.
The argument that because something *is* allowed, that it *should* be allowed and criticism of it is meaningless is absurd. What Google does is highly relevant because nobody has more control over the flow of information then they do. It's not even close. An incredibly large amount of political speech and expression is filtered through one of these tech giants to some degree.
If you want to live in a world where a few unaccountable and largely secretive companies can manipulate public opinion, enforce their ideological view of the world, and banish people and facts down the memory hole if and when they so choose, more power to you.
Bear in mind that "ascribing absurd or sinister views to another forumite" is against the rules cited on the first page. We can criticize ideas and principles and so forth, but the character of other forumites is not subject to criticism.
Let's not suggest that our fellow forumites secretly support an oppressive dystopian society.
I do agree that we should focus on the moral aspect a little more than the legal aspect. The Kavanaugh-Ford allegations are more than just a criminal matter; they have bearing on the future of the Supreme Court. Russian manipulation is more than just a criminal matter; it has bearing on the future of American democracy. The Google thing is not a criminal matter, but it has bearing on the principle of neutral access to information.
Not quantifiable or relevant, because Google is an American company that can do whatever it wants. Even if this true, it is completely within the realm of legality. Though "free speech" paragon Jordan Peterson today suggested it was treason, so there is that.
The argument that because something *is* allowed, that it *should* be allowed and criticism of it is meaningless is absurd. What Google does is highly relevant because nobody has more control over the flow of information then they do. It's not even close. An incredibly large amount of political speech and expression is filtered through one of these tech giants to some degree.
If you want to live in a world where a few unaccountable and largely secretive companies can manipulate public opinion, enforce their ideological view of the world, and banish people and facts down the memory hole if and when they so choose, more power to you.
We can have this discussion about regulating Google when the Trump Administration reverses their position on Net Neutrality and the regulation of service providers. Until then, no way.
I can understand WHY you would be upset about this alleged manipulation, but in a world where conservatives argue for the right to discriminate against gay people at public businesses, how can I take the idea that Twitter or Google can't run THEIR businesses how they see fit remotely seriously?? This is the free market conservatives have been telling me about for as long as I've been politically aware. This is a direct result of their entire philosophy. Deregulation is at it's core. The Trump Administration DESTROYED the idea of a free and open internet already, long before the debate about the political inclinations of Google and Twitter became an issue.
Talking about Russia, the appearance on Russian TV by the suspected Skripal attackers looks ever more ill-judged. To Western eyes the idea that those 'tourists' couldn't resist a brief trip from Russia to Salisbury to look at the famous cathedral there was always going to be bizarre. However, the standard Russian response to being accused of anything is to sow confusion by both rejecting the accusation and issuing alternative explanations and the tourist explanation makes sense in those terms.
This article suggests though that the Russians should have stuck to issuing statements rather than putting the suspected GRU (military intelligence) operatives on TV. That appearance, unlike the earlier mocking comments about the issue, seems to have convinced many Russians that this was indeed a GRU operation. It also portrays the GRU as distinctly incompetent, which is not an image they would have wanted.
The UK authorities believe they have built a very strong case against the Russian pair and have charged them - though there's no expectation they will leave Russia in order to be put on trial.
Not quantifiable or relevant, because Google is an American company that can do whatever it wants. Even if this true, it is completely within the realm of legality. Though "free speech" paragon Jordan Peterson today suggested it was treason, so there is that.
The argument that because something *is* allowed, that it *should* be allowed and criticism of it is meaningless is absurd.
couldn't agree more. for example, the argument that because the 2nd amendment supposedly allows unrestricted gun ownership, gun rights must be protected and criticism of gun rights is pointless is absurd, because, obviously, unrestricted gun ownership should not be allowed.
Talking about Russia, the appearance on Russian TV by the suspected Skripal attackers looks ever more ill-judged. To Western eyes the idea that those 'tourists' couldn't resist a brief trip from Russia to Salisbury to look at the famous cathedral there was always going to be bizarre. However, the standard Russian response to being accused of anything is to sow confusion by both rejecting the accusation and issuing alternative explanations and the tourist explanation makes sense in those terms.
This article suggests though that the Russians should have stuck to issuing statements rather than putting the suspected GRU (military intelligence) operatives on TV. That appearance, unlike the earlier mocking comments about the issue, seems to have convinced many Russians that this was indeed a GRU operation. It also portrays the GRU as distinctly incompetent, which is not an image they would have wanted.
The UK authorities believe they have built a very strong case against the Russian pair and have charged them - though there's no expectation they will leave Russia in order to be put on trial.
The fact that Russia is conducting what are nothing less than chemical attacks in the UK is beyond stunning and disturbing.
Even discussing the hypothetical manipulation of search results for political reasons shouldn't be tolerated. This sounds like it's worth firing the employees, depending on how serious they were about actually doing this.
That being said, I don't think the discussion of hypothetical manipulation of search results by independent American citizens should make us forget or overlook actual manipulation of social media committed by the agents of a hostile foreign government.
Disagree.
A person should be able to show how it is done, to prove that they are currently not doing it or to look for patterns of it happening to raise awareness or blow the whistle on the activity. This comes in handy when a person ignorant of how something works thinks something is suspicious but can’t prove it.
~
The FBI can investigate how the GOP got signatures from all the former female students from Kavanaugh’s school in such a short time and determine if they are all legitimate. They can also investigate who knew what when when it comes to the dirt on Kavanaugh and if it has been withheld in previous appointments. They can also investigate the claim that the Twin was the person who did it, and to make sure he hasn’t received any aid from GOP associates recently or in the near future.
If you want to live in a world where a few unaccountable and largely secretive companies can manipulate public opinion, enforce their ideological view of the world, and banish people and facts down the memory hole if and when they so choose, more power to you.
We do live in a world where a few unaccountable billionaires and largely secretive companies like the NRA and Koch industries manipulate public officials and media to enforce their right wing ideological view of the world, and Trump happily banishes people and facts down the memory hole all the time even when it's on tape. Republicans politicians and pundits also happily play along in their false reality echo chamber in order to gain more money and power for themselves.
I should revisit this Google issue @WarChiefZeke brought up to be completely fair. He is, on the merits of this individual case, probably 100% right about Google's power. The problem with making that argument in this political climate is that unfettered capitalism, deregulation, and corporations and businesses having nearly unlimited power is basically THE #1 goal of the conservative/right-wing movement in this country since Reagan was elected (for all of Nixon's faults, his domestic policies did not show a hatred of government, that started in 1980). Even Democratic Presidents like Clinton and Obama were forced to accept the paradigm shift Reagan created, which was "government is the problem, let businesses and the market run wild and decide everything". And now we're there. Trump is the end-game. This is what they wanted. If you support conservative politicians, THIS has always been their #1 goal. All the culture war stuff like abortion and gay marriage is simply in service to allowing companies like Google to do whatever the hell they want. It goes beyond absurd for them to now complain about a political philosophy that has been being espoused by the Republican Party for 30 years just because Google might lean more left than right. Pandora's Box has been open for decades. We don't just get to put the so-called liberal companies back into it. I mean, show me even 5 Republicans who are on the campaign trail talking about MORE regulation and I'll eat my hat.
No worker protections, no rise in median income to reflect productivity for decades, destruction of unions, no regulation of Wall Street speculation, a Supreme Court that has been installed to cater to almost specifically corporate interests. Where did people think this was going to end up??
Kavanaugh would argue that Google's free speech needs to be protected. It's the same thing he said when he argued against net neutrality that telecoms should not be forced to be neutral because then they are losing their free speech.
But who are we kidding he probably wouldn't say that if it means liberal speech should be protected, right. But either way he's completely wrong in defending companies free speech over individuals and he's wrong in perpetuating the BS of Citizens United that Corporations are people and should be allowed to buy politicians with unlimited dark money.
Guess what?? She went to the police. While they didn't ignore her, they seemed to refuse to interview her father, which is functionally the same thing. Her mother ignored her. Her family tried to keep her from going public with the story. Maybe one day, people will get it. I doubt it though.
"In January of 2017, the St. Cloud Police Department and Sherburne County Sheriff's Office opened an investigation into the case and two officers traveled to Boulder to interview Laura Knoblach."
when police need to *travel* to you to interview you, you know what you're dealing with...
So, there is a huge development (in my mind) in the Ford/Kavanaugh story in the middle of this Washington Post article about this doppelganger conspiracy theory:
In this article, these two paragraphs may reveal everything we need to know:
On Sunday, Ford noticed that — even before her name became public — Whelan appeared to be seeking information about her.
That morning, Ford alerted an associate via email that Whelan had looked at her LinkedIn page, according to the email, which was reviewed by The Post. LinkedIn allows some subscribers to see who views their pages. Ford sent the email about 90 minutes after The Post shared her name with a White House spokesman and hours before her identity was revealed in a story posted on its website.
Whelan has been helping conservative judges through confirmation votes for years. According to this article, he was looking for information on Professor Ford before her name was ever made public. So, the obvious question is, how in the hell did Whelan know what women to be looking for information on unless Kavanaugh told him?? And if Kavanaugh knew who the woman was, isn't that practically an admission the incident took place?? At the VERY least, it would mean the White House was sending out a hitman literally within the hour to take her down.
This is why an investigation would be MOST helpful.
Edit: PR firm with direct ties to the Federalist Society was helping push this the ENTIRE time:
Best known for its work with the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004, CRC bills itself as a full-service communications firm “specializing in media relations, social media and issues management,” according to its website. It has long been the go-to communications firm for conservative organizations in Washington and across the country. Its current clients include the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, the chief outside groups working to help confirm Kavanaugh.
It's possible some here don't remember the smearing of John Kerry's war record in the 2004 campaign, but I still have vivid images of Republican National Convention attendees all wearing Purple Heart Band-Aids to imply that John Kerry was not actually wounded in battle. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and it isn't Christine Blasey Ford. The alleged assault is one thing. But this shadow campaign that was obviously being coordinated and approved at the highest levels is probably even worse. I can't see how this doesn't go directly back to the White House and the nominee himself. There are only two possible explanations for what happened here. One is that Kavanaugh knew who she was without the name being released, thus basically copping to the whole thing, or the White House was already in the midst of launching a conspiratorial smear campaign within 60-90 minutes of getting her name. And the later option is on a MUCH tighter time-frame given when the email was sent. There are no other viable explanations.
It's possible some here don't remember the smearing of John Kerry's war record in the 2004 campaign, but I still have vivid images of Republican National Convention attendees all wearing Purple Heart Band-Aids to imply that John Kerry was not actually wounded in battle. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and it isn't Christine Blasey Ford. The alleged assault is one thing. But this shadow campaign that was obviously being coordinated and approved at the highest levels is probably even worse. I can't see how this doesn't go directly back to the White House and the nominee himself. There are only two possible explanations for what happened here. One is that Kavanaugh knew who she was without the name being released, thus basically copping to the whole thing, or the White House was already in the midst of launching a conspiratorial smear campaign with 60-90 minutes of getting her name. And the later option is on a MUCH tighter time-frame given when the email was sent. There are no other viable explanations.
It's possible some here don't remember the smearing of John Kerry's war record in the 2004 campaign, but I still have vivid images of Republican National Convention attendees all wearing Purple Heart Band-Aids to imply that John Kerry was not actually wounded in battle. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and it isn't Christine Blasey Ford. The alleged assault is one thing. But this shadow campaign that was obviously being coordinated and approved at the highest levels is probably even worse. I can't see how this doesn't go directly back to the White House and the nominee himself. There are only two possible explanations for what happened here. One is that Kavanaugh knew who she was without the name being released, thus basically copping to the whole thing, or the White House was already in the midst of launching a conspiratorial smear campaign with 60-90 minutes of getting her name. And the later option is on a MUCH tighter time-frame given when the email was sent. There are no other viable explanations.
I just liked this because I appreciate Hamlet.
Also - good find.
You know, I spent last night when I was writing posts about this thinking to myself "I'm probably reaching here, there is no way they are this dumb, I'm gonna look like an idiot when this turns out to be nothing". Turns out, they were. In all their Machiavellian scheming, they failed to take into account that LinkedIn has a "who is looking at my profile" feature. I mean, they didn't even bother to create a burner account. Inner-city drug dealers would have done that much. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny. Life comes at you fast.
In two unrelated, sort of fun tidbits, in the Texas Senate Debate tonight, Beto O'Rourke actually quoted THE CLASH saying Ted Cruz is "working for the clampdown". If nothing else this will play well in Austin (or with anyone who owns a copy of "London Calling").
And this has got to be one of the most remarkable political ads I've ever seen:
According to this article, he was looking for information on Professor Ford before her name was ever made public. So, the obvious question is, how in the hell did Whelan know what women to be looking for information on unless Kavanaugh told him??
Since D's have been sitting on this info for a few months apparently the explanation that jumps out at me was that somewhere along the line the info got leaked out, which seems to be a consistent thing in government lately. It was likely passed onto him for this reason:
Whelan has been helping conservative judges through confirmation votes for years.
And so the answer to this question:
And if Kavanaugh knew who the woman was, isn't that practically an admission the incident took place??
is no.
I should revisit this Google issue @WarChiefZeke brought up to be completely fair. He is, on the merits of this individual case, probably 100% right about Google's power. The problem with making that argument in this political climate is that unfettered capitalism, deregulation, and corporations and businesses having nearly unlimited power is basically THE #1 goal of the conservative/right-wing movement in this country since Reagan was elected
I'm always 100% right, 65% of the time, but anyway...
They are talking about censoring Trump and Trump is not an anarcho capitalist or traditional republican ideologue by any stretch of the imagination. Also, the idea that conservatives "have it coming" is just petty and not politically healthy. Also, the internet itself isn't a free market, even if it has free markets within it.
Comments
It was fair for them to offer different ways for her to testify, but a person needs to ask, why the hurry?
Kavanaugh using my word vs hers isn’t really up front though.
They aren't doing it because apparently Trump has to authorize it and he's scared and doesn't want to do that because they might uncover the truth. Trump is lying when he says they don't want to do it. In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to authorize it. Neither does the Senate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911036
Republicans have politicized the matter. McConnell has said it doesn't matter what she says we're going to confirm Kavanaugh. Grassley has jammed him through everything and set artificial deadlines to ensure Kavanaugh gets confirmed without proper vetting.
Trump has conspired to hide Kavanaugh's records. Trump has also attacked the victim before her testimony and obviously has an agenda to get Kavanaugh confirmed no matter how awful a candidate he is.
Second of all, it's not up to the FBI to decide, it is up to Trump. And it is not a criminal investigation, so jurisdiction isn't even relevant. Why are we constantly acting like this is a criminal proceeding?? It's not, it's a national job interview. And it's an interview where one side not only allowed the potential nominee to only produce about 10% of his resume, it's also one where they are flat-out telling you they will hire him no matter what.
Also, the right-wing defense of Kavanaugh, over the course of 5 days has gone through these phases:
1.) It never took place
2.) It was too long ago
3.) It wasn't actually assault
4.) So what he was 17
5.) We don't have time to look into it
6.) Maybe it took place and it was someone else.
I mean holy Christ, can we settle on one or two of them and stick with that as the defense??
Also, Professor Ford has not said she won't testify, the details are still being negotiated. They don't want her to show up. They are terrified of it, to the point where it seems likely that the GOP Senators won't even question her themselves, but give the task to a female lawyer from the committee.
Edit: Trump, who was miraculously kept on a leash about this for 3 days, has reverted to the mean. You know, the guy who said he was going to sue all of his accusers during the campaign but then never did so because he was too chickenshit to be deposed.
He was investigated and exonerated for those claims, which is another reason guilt-by-accusation is so terrible.
In this case, assuming Trump ordered the FBI to do so, i'm not sure what they are supposed to investigate here. In the Thomas case there was real evidence to look into. Any physical evidence of any sort, assuming any ever existed, is decades lost by this point, and it's safe to say the hunt for witnesses of any sort is already on.
It's a charade, pure and simple. Maybe I could believe it on it's face were it not just one part of a long stream of suggestions for various mockeries of traditional evidence based inquiry into criminal matters.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PfeifferDC/status/1042954770410090496
That being said, I don't think the discussion of hypothetical manipulation of search results by independent American citizens should make us forget or overlook actual manipulation of social media committed by the agents of a hostile foreign government.
I'd conjecture that they could take Ford's story and try to pinpoint it to a certain night and a certain house. That house had people who owned the house. There are people that know Kavanaugh's behavior around this time. There are people at the house. etc. Corroborating witnesses, one way or another would expand this beyond Ford and Kavanaugh's story (Judge, a notorious blackout drunk, claims to not remember - he doesn't deny, he uses the "Can't remember" line)
They can search social media or written media such as Judge's book Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk. They can interview Ford's friends and acquaintances such as the one that said she remembered Ford talking about it soon after it happened. Ford reported this to her therapist in 2012, they could go there and see what the therapist says.
No there's no forensics but they can see what written and oral testimony they could get. Maybe there's a note from Ford saying she's making the whole thing up, wouldn't you like to see that? Of course there's not so Republicans don't want an investigation especially if it involves Judge.
If you want to live in a world where a few unaccountable and largely secretive companies can manipulate public opinion, enforce their ideological view of the world, and banish people and facts down the memory hole if and when they so choose, more power to you.
Let's not suggest that our fellow forumites secretly support an oppressive dystopian society.
I do agree that we should focus on the moral aspect a little more than the legal aspect. The Kavanaugh-Ford allegations are more than just a criminal matter; they have bearing on the future of the Supreme Court. Russian manipulation is more than just a criminal matter; it has bearing on the future of American democracy. The Google thing is not a criminal matter, but it has bearing on the principle of neutral access to information.
I can understand WHY you would be upset about this alleged manipulation, but in a world where conservatives argue for the right to discriminate against gay people at public businesses, how can I take the idea that Twitter or Google can't run THEIR businesses how they see fit remotely seriously?? This is the free market conservatives have been telling me about for as long as I've been politically aware. This is a direct result of their entire philosophy. Deregulation is at it's core. The Trump Administration DESTROYED the idea of a free and open internet already, long before the debate about the political inclinations of Google and Twitter became an issue.
This article suggests though that the Russians should have stuck to issuing statements rather than putting the suspected GRU (military intelligence) operatives on TV. That appearance, unlike the earlier mocking comments about the issue, seems to have convinced many Russians that this was indeed a GRU operation. It also portrays the GRU as distinctly incompetent, which is not an image they would have wanted.
The UK authorities believe they have built a very strong case against the Russian pair and have charged them - though there's no expectation they will leave Russia in order to be put on trial.
A person should be able to show how it is done, to prove that they are currently not doing it or to look for patterns of it happening to raise awareness or blow the whistle on the activity. This comes in handy when a person ignorant of how something works thinks something is suspicious but can’t prove it.
~
The FBI can investigate how the GOP got signatures from all the former female students from Kavanaugh’s school in such a short time and determine if they are all legitimate.
They can also investigate who knew what when when it comes to the dirt on Kavanaugh and if it has been withheld in previous appointments.
They can also investigate the claim that the Twin was the person who did it, and to make sure he hasn’t received any aid from GOP associates recently or in the near future.
Republicans politicians and pundits also happily play along in their false reality echo chamber in order to gain more money and power for themselves.
No worker protections, no rise in median income to reflect productivity for decades, destruction of unions, no regulation of Wall Street speculation, a Supreme Court that has been installed to cater to almost specifically corporate interests. Where did people think this was going to end up??
But who are we kidding he probably wouldn't say that if it means liberal speech should be protected, right. But either way he's completely wrong in defending companies free speech over individuals and he's wrong in perpetuating the BS of Citizens United that Corporations are people and should be allowed to buy politicians with unlimited dark money.
Guess what?? She went to the police. While they didn't ignore her, they seemed to refuse to interview her father, which is functionally the same thing. Her mother ignored her. Her family tried to keep her from going public with the story. Maybe one day, people will get it. I doubt it though.
when police need to *travel* to you to interview you, you know what you're dealing with...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-ally-says-he-did-not-communicate-with-white-house-or-supreme-court-nominee-about-theory-of-another-attacker/2018/09/21/88335f1a-bdaa-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4f004cb97bcc
In this article, these two paragraphs may reveal everything we need to know:
On Sunday, Ford noticed that — even before her name became public — Whelan appeared to be seeking information about her.
That morning, Ford alerted an associate via email that Whelan had looked at her LinkedIn page, according to the email, which was reviewed by The Post. LinkedIn allows some subscribers to see who views their pages. Ford sent the email about 90 minutes after The Post shared her name with a White House spokesman and hours before her identity was revealed in a story posted on its website.
Whelan has been helping conservative judges through confirmation votes for years. According to this article, he was looking for information on Professor Ford before her name was ever made public. So, the obvious question is, how in the hell did Whelan know what women to be looking for information on unless Kavanaugh told him?? And if Kavanaugh knew who the woman was, isn't that practically an admission the incident took place?? At the VERY least, it would mean the White House was sending out a hitman literally within the hour to take her down.
This is why an investigation would be MOST helpful.
Edit: PR firm with direct ties to the Federalist Society was helping push this the ENTIRE time:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/ed-whelan-kavanaugh-tweets-pr-firm-836405
Best known for its work with the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004, CRC bills itself as a full-service communications firm “specializing in media relations, social media and issues management,” according to its website. It has long been the go-to communications firm for conservative organizations in Washington and across the country. Its current clients include the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, the chief outside groups working to help confirm Kavanaugh.
It's possible some here don't remember the smearing of John Kerry's war record in the 2004 campaign, but I still have vivid images of Republican National Convention attendees all wearing Purple Heart Band-Aids to imply that John Kerry was not actually wounded in battle. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and it isn't Christine Blasey Ford. The alleged assault is one thing. But this shadow campaign that was obviously being coordinated and approved at the highest levels is probably even worse. I can't see how this doesn't go directly back to the White House and the nominee himself. There are only two possible explanations for what happened here. One is that Kavanaugh knew who she was without the name being released, thus basically copping to the whole thing, or the White House was already in the midst of launching a conspiratorial smear campaign within 60-90 minutes of getting her name. And the later option is on a MUCH tighter time-frame given when the email was sent. There are no other viable explanations.
Also - good find.
In two unrelated, sort of fun tidbits, in the Texas Senate Debate tonight, Beto O'Rourke actually quoted THE CLASH saying Ted Cruz is "working for the clampdown". If nothing else this will play well in Austin (or with anyone who owns a copy of "London Calling").
And this has got to be one of the most remarkable political ads I've ever seen:
What a horrible bunch of people.
If she does agree every Republican will attack her to defend filthy Kavanaugh so she'll be victimized again.
"Your time has come primate!"
Oooops, that just slipped out...
And so the answer to this question:
is no.
I'm always 100% right, 65% of the time, but anyway...
They are talking about censoring Trump and Trump is not an anarcho capitalist or traditional republican ideologue by any stretch of the imagination. Also, the idea that conservatives "have it coming" is just petty and not politically healthy. Also, the internet itself isn't a free market, even if it has free markets within it.