That is corruption by Trump of the Legislative Processes prescribed to the US Senate in the USA Constitution.
I find the presence of Rachel Mitchell (click here) a relinquishment by the US Senate Judicial Committee to the open and free testimony by Dr. Ford. This is unprecedented and it should not be considered as fact by Mitchell. Mitchell's opinions are uninformed and lacking investigated opinion. Mitchell is meeting Dr. Ford for the first time in a government hearing and she is supposed to have a knee jerk opinion that is supposed to be weighed heavily by the committee members. This is nonsense.
I might add, we do not know the exposure of Mitchell to Kavanaugh. We are told he has been continually prepping for these hearings. The presence of Mitchell is highly questionable and even more of an attempt to oppress the free and open testimony of Dr. Ford. Mitchell is a peer and brings it's own peril to Dr. Ford. This is outrageous and full of insult by the US Senate Judiciary Committee of Dr. Ford. Mitchell is paid for by the committee, that is a disqualifier at the beginning of her involvement. I can't believe Mitchell is exposing herself to malpractice in such a government capacity. She certainly should be ethically reviewed for her presence at this committee meeting.
No one, including Mitchell, should be seeking to change the words of Dr. Ford or any other woman caught up in this disaster of a nominee.
Here is an interesting poll the Republicans may or may not have available to them today. The Republicans HAVE NO PROBLEM with the idea of sexual assault as a reality to women.
September 27, 2018
By Tim Marcin
...A poll from The Economist/YouGov asked about allegations (click here) of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh, both of whom are scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
The survey asked: "If it were proven that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago, do you think that does or does not disqualify Kavanaugh from being a Supreme Court Justice?"
Forty-eight percent of respondents overall thought it should disqualify him, while 28 percent said it should not and 24 percent were not sure, according to the results from The Economist/YouGov. But among Republicans, a majority—55 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault does not disqualify Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court. About one-quarter, 27 percent, thought it does disqualify him, while 18 percent were not sure. The vast majority of Democrats—71 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault should disqualify Kavanaugh....
I find the presence of Rachel Mitchell (click here) a relinquishment by the US Senate Judicial Committee to the open and free testimony by Dr. Ford. This is unprecedented and it should not be considered as fact by Mitchell. Mitchell's opinions are uninformed and lacking investigated opinion. Mitchell is meeting Dr. Ford for the first time in a government hearing and she is supposed to have a knee jerk opinion that is supposed to be weighed heavily by the committee members. This is nonsense.
I might add, we do not know the exposure of Mitchell to Kavanaugh. We are told he has been continually prepping for these hearings. The presence of Mitchell is highly questionable and even more of an attempt to oppress the free and open testimony of Dr. Ford. Mitchell is a peer and brings it's own peril to Dr. Ford. This is outrageous and full of insult by the US Senate Judiciary Committee of Dr. Ford. Mitchell is paid for by the committee, that is a disqualifier at the beginning of her involvement. I can't believe Mitchell is exposing herself to malpractice in such a government capacity. She certainly should be ethically reviewed for her presence at this committee meeting.
No one, including Mitchell, should be seeking to change the words of Dr. Ford or any other woman caught up in this disaster of a nominee.
Here is an interesting poll the Republicans may or may not have available to them today. The Republicans HAVE NO PROBLEM with the idea of sexual assault as a reality to women.
September 27, 2018
By Tim Marcin
...A poll from The Economist/YouGov asked about allegations (click here) of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh, both of whom are scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
The survey asked: "If it were proven that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago, do you think that does or does not disqualify Kavanaugh from being a Supreme Court Justice?"
Forty-eight percent of respondents overall thought it should disqualify him, while 28 percent said it should not and 24 percent were not sure, according to the results from The Economist/YouGov. But among Republicans, a majority—55 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault does not disqualify Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court. About one-quarter, 27 percent, thought it does disqualify him, while 18 percent were not sure. The vast majority of Democrats—71 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault should disqualify Kavanaugh....
Professor Christine Blasey Ford is testifying. She is forthright and appears to be unafraid. She is reading from a prepared statement that could not be coerced or oppressed by the presence of elements today intended to do so.
The complaints of "timing" by the Republicans is invalid. The letter was not submitted without Dr. Ford's consent. US Senator Feinstein respected her requests for confidentiality in regard to a very personal experience and choice.
Mitchell subpoenaed emails from the Washington Post. Amazing. That is an investigation of Ford and the Washington Post. Mitchell is carrying out an investigation as a prosecutor.
Dr. Ford's eyeglasses are interesting. It might be stylish, however, it reminds me of a professional that likes a wide vision for reading and otherwise.
It seems to me Mitchell is a clear understanding that the committee is judging Dr. Ford's competency. It appears the Democratic members will have a chance to question and clarify with Dr. Ford any statements given with Mitchell.
The issues of post sexual assault with women frequently has a complaint of concentration in achieving academically.
...trauma-related sequelae; (click here) risk factors; reporting patterns; and legal interventions, the impact on academic performance has not received adequate attention in the literature.... with collegiate grade point averages (GPAs)... In this study, the GPA is used as a guide post. That does not mean it is a definitive assessment of trauma.
Dr. Ford calls up the experience of the young men's laughter as a point that is indelible. That is an auditory ridicule. These young men treated her as an object for their amusement. That is some kind of amusement!
Music is audible and her sensitivity to it may or may not be the same as the audible laughter that was exclusively her's. Conversations with others is in question and Dr. Ford stated that was an assumption, except, when she heard Judge and Kavanaugh going down the hall after the sexual assault when they engaged others at some point. Assuming there were conversations in the house at a gathering is not wrong, it is simply what she expects to be occurring at such a gathering. Every American would expect certain behavior to occur at any party they attended.
Sexual violence is more than just a crime against individuals. It threatens our families. It threatens our communities; ultimately, it threatens the entire country. It tears apart the fabric of our communities. And that’s why we’re here today – because we have the power to do something about it as a government, as a nation. We have the capacity to stop sexual assault, support those who have survived it, and bring perpetrators to justice.
—Barack Obama, The White House Task Force Report of 2014
The statement above is testimony to why this hearing and potential investigation is important.
Amazing, others are claiming to have assaulted Dr. Ford. What next? Lying to the American public is not illegal. The National Enquirer would not be in business if lying to the public was illegal.
Senator Grassley makes an angry statement about not being informed for 45 days to the existence of this information. Senator Grassley is trying to put forward a completely different scenario that is an alternative to this hearing. He is inappropriate in assuming such information was going to be made available at all. Senator Feinstein wasn't releasing the letter without Dr. Ford's consent. The objection to timing and alternative scenario is not appropriate. It is obviously political in it's content. Dr. Ford has stated this testimony is not about politics so much concern for the country. I wish that was a priority to everyone in this committee.
continued in next entry - thank you
The complaints of "timing" by the Republicans is invalid. The letter was not submitted without Dr. Ford's consent. US Senator Feinstein respected her requests for confidentiality in regard to a very personal experience and choice.
Mitchell subpoenaed emails from the Washington Post. Amazing. That is an investigation of Ford and the Washington Post. Mitchell is carrying out an investigation as a prosecutor.
Dr. Ford's eyeglasses are interesting. It might be stylish, however, it reminds me of a professional that likes a wide vision for reading and otherwise.
It seems to me Mitchell is a clear understanding that the committee is judging Dr. Ford's competency. It appears the Democratic members will have a chance to question and clarify with Dr. Ford any statements given with Mitchell.
The issues of post sexual assault with women frequently has a complaint of concentration in achieving academically.
...trauma-related sequelae; (click here) risk factors; reporting patterns; and legal interventions, the impact on academic performance has not received adequate attention in the literature.... with collegiate grade point averages (GPAs)... In this study, the GPA is used as a guide post. That does not mean it is a definitive assessment of trauma.
Dr. Ford calls up the experience of the young men's laughter as a point that is indelible. That is an auditory ridicule. These young men treated her as an object for their amusement. That is some kind of amusement!
Music is audible and her sensitivity to it may or may not be the same as the audible laughter that was exclusively her's. Conversations with others is in question and Dr. Ford stated that was an assumption, except, when she heard Judge and Kavanaugh going down the hall after the sexual assault when they engaged others at some point. Assuming there were conversations in the house at a gathering is not wrong, it is simply what she expects to be occurring at such a gathering. Every American would expect certain behavior to occur at any party they attended.
Sexual violence is more than just a crime against individuals. It threatens our families. It threatens our communities; ultimately, it threatens the entire country. It tears apart the fabric of our communities. And that’s why we’re here today – because we have the power to do something about it as a government, as a nation. We have the capacity to stop sexual assault, support those who have survived it, and bring perpetrators to justice.
—Barack Obama, The White House Task Force Report of 2014
The statement above is testimony to why this hearing and potential investigation is important.
Amazing, others are claiming to have assaulted Dr. Ford. What next? Lying to the American public is not illegal. The National Enquirer would not be in business if lying to the public was illegal.
Senator Grassley makes an angry statement about not being informed for 45 days to the existence of this information. Senator Grassley is trying to put forward a completely different scenario that is an alternative to this hearing. He is inappropriate in assuming such information was going to be made available at all. Senator Feinstein wasn't releasing the letter without Dr. Ford's consent. The objection to timing and alternative scenario is not appropriate. It is obviously political in it's content. Dr. Ford has stated this testimony is not about politics so much concern for the country. I wish that was a priority to everyone in this committee.
continued in next entry - thank you
