Why didn’t Feinstein bring the Ford accusation to the committee she was a ranking member of?

[AkidoMaster]

but instead waited to break it to the press?

Certainly she knows protocol, certainly she knows the committee would have confidentially investigated.

Has she ever explained why?

 

[Silmarien]

The explanation I've heard is that Ford wished for it to remain confidential.

I would like a better explanation, since to me it feels like this was basic incompetence at best, and at worst, a politically motivated hijacking of a serious social issue and attempt at manipulating the liberal base. I resent that.

 

[HTacianas]

I don't think Feinstein ever believed the accusation. If she had she would have gone quietly to Grassley about to see if Kavanaugh could be withdrawn before it became public.

Kavanaugh had already gone through the hearing just fine and was on his way to confirmation when the "hail mary" was thrown to derail it.

Truth be known, no one wanted Ford to testify because they never wanted her to even appear in public.

 

[AkidoMaster]

has She ever explained why? Or is it being ignored hoping to just go away.

 

[FireDragon76]

The explanation I've heard is that Ford wished for it to remain confidential.

That's my understanding, as well. She didn't have permission to reveal the contents of the letter.

From my understanding, Feinstein sat on the letter until it was leaked, because Ford wasn't sure she wanted to endure questioning and the media attention.

 

[AkidoMaster]

Then the question would be

Who leaked it?

The only people that had it was

Dr. Ford,
Dr Ford’s attorney’s
Mrs Feinstein

 

[FireDragon76]

Then the question would be

Who leaked it?

The only people that had it was

Dr. Ford,
Dr Ford’s attorney’s
Mrs Feinstein

Rep. Anna Eshoo also had Dr. Ford's testimony.

 

[AkidoMaster]

Rep. Anna Eshoo also had Dr. Ford's testimony.

Not according to Dr Fords sworn testimony.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't think Feinstein ever believed the accusation. If she had she would have gone quietly to Grassley about to see if Kavanaugh could be withdrawn before it became public.

Or she believed that a decades old allegation couldn't be proven one way or the other. I think she should have let the GOP know about it one way or the other, though. If the White House had known that this type of allegation was out there and selected him anyway, I would have had no problem with the Democrats going nuclear with this.

I think everyone on both sides here should be very, very careful making claims about what was really going on here, what people were thinking, and what really happened 30 years ago. I understand why conservatives think it was a last minute political manouver and attempt at character smearing, but that is not the only way to read it, and the popular Democratic narrative about what happened is even uglier. This type of situation is why each side thinks the other is not just wrong, but evil. Both sides mishandled this, and the midterm election is going to come down to which one is angrier in the aftermath.

 

[wing2000]

Certainly she knows protocol, certainly she knows the committee would have confidentially investigated.

Do you really think a full committee, which consist of not only the 22 members, but their staff members, could keep the information confidential?

Absolutely not.

 

[AkidoMaster]

Do you really think a full committee, which consist of not only the 22 members, but their staff members, could keep the information confidential?

Absolutely not.

But it wasn’t 22 it was three

Regardless, it was leaked by one of the three. And it does not address the question.

 

[eleos1954]

but instead waited to break it to the press?

Certainly she knows protocol, certainly she knows the committee would have confidentially investigated.

Has she ever explained why?

Many many unusual circumstances in this case. So, what are we to learn from it?

1. If one wants something to truly remain confidential, then keep it within yourself or between you and the Lord.

2. If someone commits an offense against you, report it to the police immediately.

3. People are not be judged on say so (accusations) ... just because someone says so (accuses) ... does not make it so. We accept innocence of the accused, until a case is presented in court and then requires evidence beyond a shadow of doubt. We would rather a guilty person go free, than a innocent one be punished for something they did not do. This of course is not 100% ... but we strive for it.

Just a few I can think of.

 

[wing2000]

But it wasn’t 22 it was three

Regardless, it was leaked by one of the three. And it does not address the question.

Only Sen. Feinstein can address that point.

My point is our current system is broken. Without confidentiality, no one can come forward to report information without the risk of having the their private lives, and that of the accused, exposed to the nation.

There are no easy answers...

 

[AkidoMaster]

Only Sen. Feinstein can address that point

And she is completely silent on it, I wonder why?

 

[USincognito]

And she is completely silent on it, I wonder why?

Contact - United States Senator for California

 

[AkidoMaster]

Contact - United States Senator for California

do you think she will answer me when she has not even answered others in the Senate?

I really don’t think I am that powerful.

 

[USincognito]

do you think she will answer me when she has not even answered others in the Senate?

I really don’t think I am that powerful.

You're asking a bunch of strangers on an Internet forum. I'm merely suggesting that you try something closer to the source.

 

[AkidoMaster]

Contact - United States Senator for California

I sent the above. Wonder if I will get a reply.

 

[AkidoMaster]

You're asking a bunch of strangers on an Internet forum. I'm merely suggesting that you try something closer to the source.

That is what the forum is for and why people ask questions here all the time.

You know,a discussion and debate forum for American Politics.

 

[FireDragon76]

Or she believed that a decades old allegation couldn't be proven one way or the other. I think she should have let the GOP know about it one way or the other, though. If the White House had known that this type of allegation was out there and selected him anyway, I would have had no problem with the Democrats going nuclear with this.

I think everyone on both sides here should be very, very careful making claims about what was really going on here, what people were thinking, and what really happened 30 years ago. I understand why conservatives think it was a last minute political manouver and attempt at character smearing, but that is not the only way to read it, and the popular Democratic narrative about what happened is even uglier. This type of situation is why each side thinks the other is not just wrong, but evil. Both sides mishandled this, and the midterm election is going to come down to which one is angrier in the aftermath.

I do support an investigation, however, one doesn't have to spin things too much to see the whole ideology of the Right as incredibly ugly... and the anger of many in this country as justified. We're having patriarchal bronze-age and iron-age values rammed down our throats by a small minority, despite the fact generally our culture has moved on a long time ago.