- Oct 2009
That's, uh, what they did. For the most part they relied on their professional and suitably female prosecutor to do it for them, but that happened on their authority.They were being nice. What are they going to do, interrogate a woman who claims to be a rape victim on national television?
Why do I gather from you that Ford is some kind of Democratic plant? Is that really what you believe?Give her the third degree? That's a lose lose situation. And that was the whole idea. Democrats absolutely wanted to create those optics. Which is why you had scenes like Cory Booker serving Blasey Ford a cup of water on camera. She was a prop for him to put on a little virtue signal show.
All accusations can be described as smears if one is prepared to disregard things like a victim statement, circumstantial evidence, the defendant's own behavior ...But it does show that the idea was to smear Kavanaugh with false accusations.
I concur with @Djinn ... which is worse, making Kavanaugh face his accuser before he gets a job, or suppressing the nomination completely, as was done with Garland?
Where the nominee didn't even have a chance to present his merits or face his faults? What's worse?
Certainly not. Kavanaugh's reputation will go down in history, that much is certain.It's borne out by history.
How? It's a job interview process. When one candidate has problems, you go with somebody else.Nominating anyone else would have rewarded the vicious smear campaign.
The frame of mind you assigned to this entire mess are really unreasonable. This was not a criminal trial! It was a hiring process for a really important job with life tenure.
It ought to be harsh.