What does that mean, “force” the vote? I am curious about that.
If they have enough votes to move it to the senate for a vote, no?
I mean, the vetting process went as scheduled. A vote was already delayed to hear Ford. Is it forcing if the accuser won’t testify?
Stall tactics are completely legal and obviously not that hard to use, given the ability of the Dems to obstruct Trump at every turn with a minority.
But in this context, force the vote means “We forced the GOP to use legal workarounds to our legal stall tactics”
Absolutely. It’s all about the optics.
1 Like
Correction: If the accuser was ready to testify and then pulled back and decided not to testify. She already agreed to testify. It begs the question of whether she does not want to face her accused because it may not have been him.
EASY turnaround.
She has lingering trauma and the GOP is forcing her to confront her attacker in an attempt to intimidate her using the power of Congress.
Grassley has clarified that they will not testify at the same time
Edit: Oh, and she could do it in a private hearing.
When I see a Mitch Mconnel or Trump, I think that. And I’m a white guy.
Then we can paint the GOP as anti constitution scum who caved to the Dems and didn’t give Kav the right to face his accuser.
Here’s the thing. Look at my posts on Roy Moore, I am more than willing to give air to credible accusations. Here I am calling bullshit, and everything I have seen vindicates that position.
2 Likes
Lmao, you are likely right, the onion does no justice to politics, no comic is capable of that level of bullshit.
1 Like
It’s because the best bullshit is rooted in truth.
Imagine the anti congressmen ads. “Peter VonTrumpkin took away Kavs right to face his accuser. What will he take away next?”
*Cuts to imagine of Mexican children in cages
1 Like
If she made a legal accusation she would have to face him in court. There’s no way around it, the law allows the accused to confront the accuser. So, she has to face him at some point or bravely run away.
Incorrect. He has the right to face his accuser if he is actually tried in a criminal court. Since this isn’t a criminal case he doesn’t have the right to face her.
Oh I know. But if they make the meet happen the message is “forced confrontation with her attacker” and if they don’t meet it’ll be “didn’t have Kavs back. Took away his right to face her.”
Both of the narratives are just too easy to see coming
Well, since there is a distinct lack of evidence it wouldn’t make it to criminal court. It has no teeth.
Tell me what year the assault happened in?
I don’t know either. You cannot say it happened with no other details and expect it to count. Unless she provides some evidence, this is over.
I set the bar really low. I just want to know generally when and generally where the party happened. I cannot even get that very simple answer. There is not a single corroborating witness for the party itself muchless the assault. This was a swing and a miss.
You can hate him for his politics, but you cannot come after him with pitchforks with zero evidence. She said it happened is not enough.
So if you were accused of a crime, you would give up the right to face your accuser?
But if it did happen, should she remain silent?
There is no such right. Read the Sixth Amendment.
Who knows. Probably wouldn’t care, as I don’t really see the point of physically facing your accuser, although I understand other people’s want for it.
You don’t see the point of being able to cross-examine someone whose testimony is being used against you?