I’m voting for Democrat Kevin De Leon.

this matter.

The woman apparently wanted to remain antonymous, and that's fine, but I don't think she wanted the senator to "hide" the letter from everyone, even from her fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.

As a native San Franciscan, I have been a proud supporter of Dianne Feinstein for decades, going back to her days as Mayor of my home town; but in my opinion, Sen. Feinstein has helped an abuser of women move forward to the SCOTUS by not releasing the letter as soon as she received it.

You may want to send an email to her as well;
after all, you're one of her constituents too.

My thinking is that the jurors thought you were attacking the incumbent Democrat, even though there is a Democrat on the 2nd line of the U.S. Senate for California.

I don’t try to violate the rules but have a real difficult time discerning where the line is.

I don’t think we should be mere robots. This OP is edgy but fine with me. I just don’t know how to gauge a moving line.

I merely pointed out a post was alerted and was alerted for doing so - and my post was hidden.
Kind of makes you feel not welcome here. Those that alert seem to be quite edgy in my opinion.
The jury is also a flip of a coin - overall a not perfect system.
JMHO
-Airplane

wouldn’t have time to to refute it, or worse release the victims name when she specifically requested it remain confidential

and one-upmanship on the games the Cons have been playing. THe woman could've sent it to her other Senator if she was unhappy with how it was being handled.

... even if it's contrived and rife with false speculation.

being pursued, ignoring the fact that we don't have the majority in both houses

And she didn't share it with fellow Dems.

What's up with that?

With Harris', Booker's, Leahy's and Hirono's sharp grilling of Kavanaugh, if she had weighed in with this revelation and question it might have swung the tide of a couple of repug votes. Not well handled IMO.

Just whose "status quo" was this supposed to protect? The Republicans'? Is the implication that senate Democrats actually want Kavanaugh seated? Are we supposed to believe that an extreme right-wing pro-business authoritarian will protect the interests of congressional Democrats?

I cry shame, Red Dog. Don't try to hide behind Vox. No one made you copy that smearing title here.

Divisive trolling is what it is.

appointed official's private behavior was not relevant to his behavior and choices in office. For example, the press's willingness to ignore JFK's womanizing.

The WaPo was investigating for them, and she waited to see how this would develop while she honored her promise of confidentiality. If there was no supporting evidence, breaking her word to produce a seemingly baseless accusation could have backfired badly on us.

As it is, the Republicans are now complaining bitterly that it came out this late. Yes. They were anxious to railroad this confirmation through before something else blew up in their faces, and having this one do just that so late that we may be able to use it to delay the vote yet again is making them unhappy.

Btw, wherever that "personal" behavior idea comes from, you might rethink it. This is a skilled professional at work.

status quo. I personally have no idea and no opinion about why she kept the information to herself. I have read the Vox article that claims that the Farrow/Mayer article says she was acting on a belief that an office holder's private life isn't relevant to his public life.

Others on this thread have speculated about what the status quo is that they claim she is protecting. I am just clarifying what the article actually claims that status quo is. (Not everyone reads an article before summarizing what they think it says.)

I have no knowledge about whether what Vox claims Farrow/Mayer say is actually what they say (I haven't read the Farrow/Mayer article). Nor do I have any knowledge on which to base an opinion about whether Feinstein even holds such a belief about private/public life, much less whether such a belief led her to withhold theinformation.

This is from the Vox article:

trust that he won't just roll over and let the vote go through.

They need to issue a correction and an apology, as does Vox.

had both sensible and responsible reasons behind them? Ultimately we may have had a responsibility to this person to do something with her report, but we also had a responsibility not to injure anyone with them unethically also.

It shouldn't need to be pointed out that the anonymous accuser always had the option of reporting her story to other sources and also of dropping anonymity so that it could be properly investigated and hopefully validated or invalidated.

Let's be just a tiny bit honest and admit that Dianne Feinstein and our party would be attacked whenever they released it. This isn't a reasonable disagreement about how best to proceed. It's an attack on our party to benefit the Republicans based on a revealingly thin and irrational excuse. It has nothing to do with duty and everything to do with weaponizing whatever comes along.

And I definitely question the motives.

A SEXUAL-MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE BRETT KAVANAUGH STIRS TENSION AMONG DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS

"A source familiar with the committee's activities said that Feinstein's staff initially conveyed to other Democratic members offices that the incident was too distant in the past to merit public discussion, and that Feinstein had 'taken care of it.'"

nefarious when we all know she’s been flat out against Kavanaugh from day one. It’s as if these writers are unfamiliar with the idea of political strategy. I think this was a Hail Mary becasue there is not a lot to be done with it since the woman doesn’t want to come forward.

Almost thirty percent of Americans are clueless fuckwits! Why not join them? Watch Vox News!"

I used the search bar on Vox News ans was unable to come up with that.

came up....

came up??????

Who are you?

You're not the same DUer I asked the question to:
[question was ] - "Do you have a link to that?"

So, whomever you are, I'll ask you this question as well....do YOU have a link for that?

"DiFi a secret mole for Trump? Coming up next on Vox News!"

And I will assume that your original reply was merely made up as a sarcastic joke.

Why didn't you at least add the n/t?

Do you find any humor in the fact that Trump will be successfully getting his second SCOTUS pick for the next 30 or 40 years?.
[Despite the probability that Kavanaugh attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl back in high school]

How funny is that?

How do you "watch" a website that's not a TV network?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Media

Are you confusing Vox News with Fox News?

and I'm quite happy to lampoon anyone who engages in such counter-productive behavior

If you don't like sardonic word-play, well, OK then: that's fine with me -- but I think my little barbs are well-directed

The framing here is pure garbage.

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2018, 01:39 AM - Edit history (3)

Trump, McConnell and Kavanaugh."
In my opinion, Vox should have had a more accurate and/or appropriate title


The New Yorker article by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow concludes with this:

"Sources familiar with Feinstein's decision suggested that she was acting out of concern for the privacy of the accuser, knowing that the woman would be subject to fierce partisan attacks if she came forward.
Feinstein also acted out of a sense that Democrats would be better off focusing on legal, rather than personal, issues in their questioning of Kavanaugh.
Sources who worked for other members of the Judiciary Committee said that they respected the need to protect the woman's privacy, but that they didn't understand why Feinstein had resisted answering legitimate questions about the allegation.
'We couldn't understand what their rationale is for not briefing other members of the committee on this..This is all very weird.' one of the congresisonal sources said.
Another added, "She's had the letter since late July..And we all just found out about it."


Now, in retrospect, I wish I'd posted the New Yorker article itself, rather than the Vox article,
because the Vox article does resort to editorializing, rather than just reporting the facts as contained in the New Yorker article.
Nowhere in the article is there even an intimation that
"Feinstein silenced Kavanaugh's accuser to 'protect the status quo'

However, except for the "protect the status quo" part, the Vox article seems to be factual.

From the New Yorker article:
"Feinstein's decision to handle the matter in hr own office, without notifying other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stirred concern among her Democratic colleagues.
For several days, Feinstein denied requests from other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to share the woman's letter and other relevant communications."


Perhaps a better headline for Vox to use might have been:
"Why did Dianne Feinstein hide letter from Kavanaugh accuser from other members of the Judiciary Committee?"
Or perhaps:
"Feinstein's hiding of Kavanaugh accuser's letter stirs concern among her Democratic colleagues"

That was a horribly framed title for a news article about Feinstein hiding that letter from Kavanaugh's accuser's from other members of the Judiciary Committer.

A much better title might have been:
"Why did Feinstein hide latter she received from a woman who claims that Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a party",,
ot perhaps, "Why did Feinstein hide Kavanaugh accuser's letter?"
[he held his hand over her mouth so others wouldn't hear her screams)

In something like this so fraught with potential to harm America for generations..?

I sent an email to Senator Feinstein yesterday, essentially asking her that very question!

...and perhaps the same rigor ought to apply to a female senator from another era or two before MeToo.

They shouldn't get to choose to withhold such critical information from the people.

Really. This is all they got?

In light of Ford's lawyer coming out and praising Feinstein for doing exactly what Ford asked her to do.

Feinstein was right to withhold Kavanaugh letter, accuser’s attorney says


And to remind DUers not to jump to conclusions and always assume the worst of Democrats.

Sid