Hirono: Men Need To “Shut Up and Step Up” After Kavanaugh Allegations

440px-Mazie_Hirono,_official_portrait,_113th_CongressImagine if a male United States Senator declared that women just need to “shut up.”  It would be a grossly sexist and disturbing statement that lead to calls for censure.  However, there apparently is no such concern in the inverse.  Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) told men to “shut up and step up” when asked about the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Hirono further insists that accused Dr. Christine Blasey Ford “need to be believed” and not just heard.  

 

Hirono stated:

 

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): I think we all know when something is not fair, when something smells. This is so patently not fair to her and what really bothers me and gets me so angry that the White House is victimizing this person. Why don’t we get that out there? Why should we participate in the victimization of someone who has the courage to come forward? And she is under no obligation to participate in a smearing of her and her family. That is why I am very clear about what needs to happen. But at the same time if the Republicans go forward with their plan to railroad this fast-track as they have so many other nominations, I expect the members of the press to talk about how unfair that is. I don’t think that is editorializing, that is laying out the facts. I expect that from you guys…

HIRONO: I expect the men in this country and the men in this committee because we all signed on to this letter to demand an FBI investigation. But really guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up and step up, do the right thing for a change.

Hirono is clearly right that Ford must be treated fairly and not punished for coming forward with her allegation. That includes not having to testify next to Kavanaugh, as her counsel suggested was the plan for Monday.  However, the calling of the hearing is not a form of victimization.  Her allegation was made shortly before the vote on Kavanaugh and the vote has been delayed.  A hearing has been scheduled for Monday but Ford is now saying that she will not testify unless the FBI launched an investigation.

On the issue of believing Ford, do you believe that she has a right to be believed or to be heard?

 

 

391 thoughts on “Hirono: Men Need To “Shut Up and Step Up” After Kavanaugh Allegations”

  1. No senator, I won’t keep my mouth shut. This is a political hit job on an innocent man. I’ll bet in the 90′ s you voted for Hill Clinton twice. Juannitta Broderick wants to know where the FBI is to investigate Bill Clinton about her rape claims.

  2. “But really guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up and step up, do the right thing for a change.”

    It sounds like Hirono represents only half the people. She is a sexist.

    1. “But really guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country.”

      Actually, it was women who would usually lead unsuspecting actresses up to Harvey Weinstein’s hotel room for a “meeting.” If every woman in Hollywood had held to Maureen O’Hara’s convictions that she would not, under any circumstances, throw herself upon the casting couch, and God help the director who tried to kiss her, then there would have been no Harvey Weinstein predation.

      1. That’s right but the left cheers the woman that got the part and yielded to the Harvey Weinstein’s of the world. They weaseled their parts and woman that were REAL women lost the part. That to me is the biggest crime.

  3. Here is the only link I can find to Senator Grassley’s letter to Ford’s counsel today. I have never successfully entered a link, but what the heck.

    https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1042462792979283968/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1042462792979283968%7Ctwgr%5E373939313b636f6e74726f6c&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fnews%2Fgrassley-explains-the-fbi-cant-investigate-claim-in-letter-to-kavanaugh-accusers-attorney%2F

    TL;DR version – She must submit her testimony and biography to the committee by 10 a.m. Friday morning (as per their normal rules) if she is to testify on Monday. Otherwise, process continues without her.

  4. Addressing the chatter down-thread. From the horse’s mouth:

    DOJ Issues Statement On Kavanaugh Background Check

    By Matt Shuham

    September 19, 2018 12:17 pm

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/doj-issues-statement-on-kavanaugh-background-check

    Excerpt:

    But it would take a simple request from Trump for the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background report file — the same file Ford’s letter alleging the sexual assault went into last week.

    A spokesperson for the Justice Department didn’t immediately rule out this possibility, of gathering “more background reports,” when asked.

    Read the DOJ’s full statement below:

    “The Department of Justice and the FBI conduct background investigations in accordance with a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., and then-White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer in March 2010. The MOU provides as follows:

    “‘[P]rior to an Appointee’s assuming the nominated position … if the FBI becomes aware of new information that raises questions about the suitability or trustworthiness of an Appointee … the FBI will so apprise the President or his designated representative as soon as possible.’

    “The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. On the night of September 12, the FBI received a letter dated from July 2018 alleging that the nominee engaged in an incident of misconduct in the 1980s. Consistent with the memorandum of understanding, the FBI forwarded this letter to the White House Counsel’s Office. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI’s role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers.”

  5. What if I suggested that women of Japanese-origin should shut up and step up – apologizing over and again for the sins of their war-mongering antecedents?

    Ms. Hirono comes across so myopic in her fem-partisan inanity, that I strongly suspect she can see through a keyhole with both eyes at the same time.

    Myopia ain’t a skill – it’s a condition. And it’s not a malady to be proud of.

  6. What would happen if a white male said the women need to shut up and step up? Or that a single allegation against them should be enough to prevent them from holding the highest job in their career, regardless of the it was alleged to happen 36 years ago, there is no evidence presented, the accuser refuses to testify, and there has been no investigation yet?

    A mere accusation destroying a prominent, well respected woman’s career?

    People are innocent until proven guilty. If you make an accusation and then refuse to testify or be involved in the investigation, then how can you be upset if nothing comes of it? She cannot insist that the FBI investigate. It is not an alleged federal crime. This is a matter for local law enforcement. And local law enforcement has the following information – this allegedly happened 36 years ago, she does not recall when or where or who else was there, except for one other person, who denies knowing anything about it. She has not provided any evidence. Never spoke of it until 2012. When she did speak of it, her husband said that she was afraid that Kavanaugh was going to be nominated for the Supreme Court. NOT that she was afraid that Kavanaugh had been rapping people for 36 years and that someone had to stop him. Not that women were in danger and should be warned. The only concern her husband talked about was that he might get on the Supreme Court.

    As a woman, that seems really strange to me. If I knew someone tried to rape someone, and got away with it, all I could think about would be, did he hurt someone else? Multiple women? Did he keep doing this?

    Even the most vulnerable among us, children who were raped by pedophiles, testify in court. They sometimes sit with a therapy dog to help them get through the questioning. They’re traumatized. These are small children who didn’t get allegedly pawed, they got raped. And they’re minors. And they sit before a room full of strangers and testify, with the accused right there in the room, looking at them the entire time. And they are not allowed to receive any comfort from their Mom or Dad on the stand.

    These kids do this to help convict pedophiles in court. God bless them. That’s bravery.

    Ms Ford, on the other hand, threw out a very serious allegation, and then refused to cooperate. Diane Feinstein sat on this letter since July. I suspect that she did not bring it out, because obviously you can never prove it, and there has been no history of this behavior. Rapists rape. They have patterns. That’s what brought down Bill Cosby. There is no history of this for Kavanaugh. She knew it would come to nothing but character assassination. So she held it, stayed quiet all during questioning, and then produced it like a royal flush at the very end. It was nothing more than a dirty politics delaying tactic, to try to hold off the nomination until after the midterms.

    Meanwhile, Democrats will mindlessly repeat this allegation like the Gospel truth. Maybe Kavanaugh will not get seated. And then, after, when it’s been ether disproven, or never proven, people will shrug their shoulders and go, oh well. He’ll be forever tainted, and that’s not fair. You cannot disprove a negative. He cannot prove that he never pawed anyone against her will, unless 24/7 of his life was recorded on camera. She doesn’t really need to prove it happened. She has succeeded in attaching this accusation to him forever. That is why it is not fair that she allegedly waited 36 years, never went to the police, never talked about it, and then brought it up when it was too late to ever prove it. No one can ever defend themselves against such an attack.

    I have no idea what really happened. Did Kavanaugh try to rape her? Was Judge in on it and tried to rape her too? Was it only Kavanaugh who tried to rape her, and Judge burst in thinking he was busting up something consensual? Was Kavanaugh drunk and thought he was joking around? Was she drunk, and thus her memory was not reliable? Did a minor incident grow larger and larger in her sub conscience until it became a near rape? Did she know Kavanaugh? Was it a stranger and when she later saw Kavanaugh she thought it was him?

    I don’t think that any of us will ever know the answer to any of these questions. Rape is a very serious, soul killing crime. When women immediately report it, it can avoid many of the problems that arise from waiting decades. The choice not to report has consequences.

    1. Our new criminal justice system motto: alleged victims need to be believed and not just heard.

      We can all forget about the whole due process, right to a fair trial, or any other pesky repressions of the patriarchy.

      From now on, when a female victim makes an accusation, fire him immediately and send him straight to jail. She can even say something happened 30 years ago or more. It’s the Gospel truth. Women are exactly equal to men, even down to their preferences for raising families, jobs, and STEM, except for honesty. Women are genetically superior to men in terms of honesty. And sexism. Women are NEVER sexist. That would be impossible, requiring a complete change in the balance of powers and the hegemony.

      Human beings who do not learn critical reasoning are reduced to sheep.

    1. I don’t hate the left, but i hate those who hate me. If they hate whites, they hate me, and I hates em right back. if they hate men then i hate them right back, equal force, without any hesitation. if things jump off, I know what car I’m in! do they?

      I am not sure if I am Christian enough in that regard but I am what i am

      gird they loins for battle, I am talking a more OT viewpoint these days

  7. Men have been telling women to sit down and shut up and much worse for centuries. It’s tiresome when powerful men pretend concern for ethics and fairness and play the victim. I agree that it’s time for the Republican men in Congress to stop pretending that they have a balanced view of the acccusations against their much valued nominee. There comments are clear evidence of their desire to deman the woman and trivialize her experience. Shutting up about how the nominee is being victimized and stepping up to do the right thing…an investigation by the FBI; calling the witness referenced by his accuser to testify and treating all witnesses before the Committee with respect. I won’t hold my breath.

    I watched the Anita Hill interrogation; it was appalling. It should never happen again.

    1. Justice Holmes – I, too, watched Anita Hill try to lynch Clarence Thomas. Her story had too many holes in it and really did not hold together in the aggregate. She totally lost me with the pubic hair comment.

        1. Anita Hill has had three or four academic positions since (now with tenure), positions for which she didn’t have the customary preparation. Not much on her vita in the way of professional or scholarly publication, but FWIW several research institutions have elected to hire her. The word ‘lynching’ does not mean what you fancy it means.

        2. the analogy was not apt in either direction

          she had a beef against him, they made a lot out of it. Prof Ford’s beef is far, far weaker by comparison, honestly, it is so old and stale and weak.

          Anita’s beef had little to do with race in either direction, in my view, but i can’t blame Thomas for playing the card. he is entitled to his feelings as much as she.

          he’s not really a bad judge, I have read some fine opinions he wrote. i don’t follow them all that closely however

        3. Clarence Thomas referred to it as a lynching. Twice. Read his comments to the committee from October 1991.

        4. Nah. She’s the one who made the false accusation in an attempt to destroy an innocent man. She simply wasn’t believed.

          David Brock(your current ally) did a truly remarkable take down of Anita Hill. She has zero credibility having been caught in numerous lies under oath. You should read it.

      1. The truth is that Clarence Thomas was really not that qualified to sit on the court. The Bush administration was quite cynically seeking a Black whose views perfectly aligned with White conservatives.

        1. Justice Thomas is quite brilliant. He can see sh-t walking in the door from a mile away.

          Of course because he is black you probably feel he is not qualified or is sexually perverse and that generally would be called racist.

        2. The truth is that Clarence Thomas was really not that qualified to sit on the court.

          Compared to whom?

          1. Sandra Day O’Connor; about 2 years of state-level appellate work, about 5 years on the bench, ordinary law practice prior.

          2. William Rehnquist: no time on the bench, a few years in the Justice Department, lawyer in Phoenix prior.

          3. Lewis Powell: no time on the bench. Lawyer in Richmond, Va.

          4. Thurgood Marshall: time as solicitor-general and time on the bench sum to about 5 years. Counsel for an advocacy group for 20 years or so. Some years as a solo practitioner.

          5. Abe Fortas: no time on the bench; some time as a law professor decades earlier. Time in both private practice and as agency counsel. LBJ crony.

          6. Arthur Goldberg: Labor lawyer. No time on the bench.

          7. Potter Stewart: 4 years on the federal appellate bench, private practice prior.

          8. Charles Whittaker. Corporate lawyer. 3 years on the federal bench, of which 1 year was on the appellate bench.

          9. Wm. Brennan: 7 years on the New Jersey bench, of which 5 years consisted of appellate work. private practice and JAG work prior

          10. Earl Warren. Prosecutor and state attorney-general. No time on the bench.

            1. Half did, half didn’t.. Clarence Thomas did.

              Clarence Thomas held a seat on the DC Circuit. He also chaired a federal regulatory agency for 8 years, so he was familiar with rule-making and adjudication in that setting. If that’s not good enough, why are these others ‘qualified’?

              PS: some other Warren Court luminaries include Hugo Black (previous time on the bench limited to a couple of years as a JP), Wm. O. Douglas (who spent about 5 years on a federal regulatory commission, and that’s it), Tom C. Clark (no time on the bench), and Robert Jackson (time as Solicitor-General, no time on the bench), and Stanley Reed (time as S-G, no time on bench).

              1. Wikipedia notes that the ABA was less than certain regarding Thomas’ qualifications:

                “Anticipating that the ABA would rate Thomas more poorly than they thought he deserved, the White House and Republican Senators pressured the ABA for at least the mid-level qualified rating, and simultaneously attempted to discredit the ABA as partisan.[41] The ABA did rate Thomas as qualified, although with one of the lowest levels of support for a Supreme Court nominee.[42][43][44][45][46][47] Ultimately, the ABA rating ended up having little impact on Thomas’ nomination”.

                From “Clarence Thomas”, Wikipedia profile.

                1. The ABA stopped looking at legal qualifications and started looking at ideological positions decades ago. Think Judge Bork.

                2. See James Lindgren’s statistical study of ABA evaluations. There’s a reason the Republicans quit taking the ABA seriously.

        3. Peter Hill – would you like to list the qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court and then note where Thomas ran short?

            1. Thomas was confirmed and is on the court. What you are doing is making a great case to stop delaying Kavanaugh’s confirmation as he is vastly more qualified at this point in his career than Justice Thomas was when he was confirmed.

              Thank you for the vote of confidence.

              1. That’s true, Olly. Kavanuagh is vastly more qualified. Exactly what I’m talking about.

                But Kavanaugh should want to be cleared before he takes his seat.

                1. I’m certain if BK believed he needed his name cleared he would take the steps to do it. He doesn’t appear to have your fragile ego. He doesn’t need a safe space.

            2. Peter Hill – exactly what is required to be a Supreme Court justice? This is not hard. It is in the Constitution.

    2. What will the FBI investigate?

      She can show up and share her story with the committee and be judged on her credibility or lack thereof. Same for Kavanaugh. There is nothing for the FBI to do here.

      So Kavanaugh is guilty as charged and his character is being assassinated unless HE can prove himself innocent? It doesn’t work that way in this country.

    3. Justice Holmes, the FBI already said that this is an issue for local law enforcement.

      What is either the FBI or the police supposed to do? Their hands are tied. They can neither vindicate her nor exonerate him.

      She doesn’t know when or where the alleged attempted rape occurred, or who else was there, except for Judge. She never went to the police, didn’t speak about it until 2012, and has no evidence. She showed concern about stopping him from becoming a Supreme Court nominee in that very therapy session, in 2012. Not about stopping a predator, stopping him from ascending to SCOTUS. She is opposed to him politically. She has motive. She might be telling the truth, or she might be lying, or she might be wrong. There is no way to tell.

      3 people named. 2 claim it didn’t happen. No history of similar behavior. Underwent 3 FBI INVESTIGATIONS already in order to get clearance for his positions. Has a character reference letter signed by 65 women, all of whom have known him for more than 36 years, including those of very different political persuasions.

      What are they supposed to do?

      There is a consequence to failing to report an incident. I don’t know what, or if, anything happened to Miss Ford. Absent any proof, or even any information on where, or when, a crime occurred, you’ve got to have something. A pattern of behavior. Other victims with similar stories, and evidence for their accusations…something. Otherwise, we are no better than a lynch mob.

    4. Men have been telling women to sit down and shut up

      You say that like it’s a bad thing.

      There comments are clear evidence of their desire to deman the woman and trivialize her experience.

      We don’t have to do either. The woman demeans herself and her experience as rendered is trivial.

      1. Again, women have options, men have obligations. There are subsidiary points, like there are to Murphy’s Law and the Peter Principle, but that’s the main one.

        And he’s trying to get into some dame’s pants.

        1. Well aren’t you just the irascible old coot these days? This is to, I’m a failed academic but I can pretend to be relevant by saying modality 3 times on the same blog, TSTD.

  8. Lead guitarist of the Grateful Dead, Jerry Garcia ate some birthday cake frosting that was dosed with 800 hits of LSD. Jerry remembers everything about it & for the record, here’s the video interview. No FBI needed.

  9. Ms Hirono says Christine Blasey Ford needs to be “believed” not just heard. Would one of you attorney types explain to Ms Hirono the “Reasonable Doubt Rule”? Maybe because Ford’s recollections are so sketchy at this point maybe Kavanaugh is the guy who jumped on both her and the perp and saved her from attack. That is if the attack every really occurred. The Dems calling foul never had any intent of voting for Kavanaugh. As everyone here knows this is a stall.

    1. Reasonable doubt standard in a hearing that is not a court trial? Do you know what you are saying? This is about a person who might become a member of the US Supreme Court for many years and once he is there we can’t fire him. How much doubt is reasonable to disqualify a candidate? Can we expect him to be fair in court matters related to sexual crimes if he has been a perpetrator himself?

      1. We have no reason to believe the event in question ever happened bar her say so (delivered 36 years after the fact with no secondary details and garbled primary details). I’d say we have sufficient reasonable doubt.

      2. So all it takes is for someone, anyone, to make an accusation, that is not proven, and he doesn’t get to serve on SCOTUS?

        Do you realize the inducement that would be for political terrorism? Is this the game play now? You guys had better not nominate anyone who doesn’t agree with our politics, or else we’ll get someone to say he tried to rape her decades ago. The allegation itself will be enough to ruin him.

        Can you imagine if both sides start doing this? Is this how you want things to be? Because eventually, two will start playing at this game.

      3. @RigorMortis-How much doubt is reasonable? In this case all the doubt in the world! Like I said Ford should be heard but her recollections are not enough for a reasonable man or woman. Kavanaugh may be the guy who (according to her recollection) entered the room and jumped on both of them thus stopping the alleged attack. Now if you said there is a police report on file detailing her attack and the perp’s ID, that’s doubt or she immediately went home and told mom and dad and they reported the incident to police, that’s doubt. Like I said Ms Hirono need’s to hear this from the attorney type who monitor this blog. Tell everyone here what you would do if you applied for a job and some man/woman said you put your hands on them 35 years ago at a party and should not get the job. They can’t remember where, when, who was there and never reported it anyone but your the guy/girl. Give us all your reaction?

    1. RSA – where does it say anywhere she has a right to be questioned by a female attorney? However, Brett’s attorney is female. 😉 Ninner Ninner.

    2. The Republicans on the committee have offered to have her questioned by their females staffers, in private, to accommodate her discomfort. Sadly, that isn’t enough for her and her lawyer.

    3. Do male and female attorneys take a different oath? More specifically, isn’t a male attorney capable of cross-examining a female and vice versa?

      1. Hillary Clinton sure was not friendly to the female victim of the pedophile she represented. I don’t think the vic was happy to be facing a female attorney that day. Remember Hillary on tape, chuckling because the lab accidentally threw away the blood stained piece of underwear from when she was raped so violently, as a virgin, that she could never have children?

    4. She has the right to give the finger to Grassly and the rest of the Committee, as she has done so far. Grassly and the Committee now have the sworn duty to ignore her and vote tomorrow, as earlier planned and promised till Ford turned up. Americans deserve the SCOTUS nominated by the POTUS elected by the people (ditto the Committee members). Nothing about the attack suggests nor implies a national security risk to the USA,which is all the FBI has the power to investigate.

      We know for a fact that three times Ginsberg publicly declared Trump’s unfitness for office. Hence, if any matter comes to the Court Re. to Trump, she shall automatically rule against him regardless the evidence presented. If Ford’s allegation should prevent Brett from taking the seat, them let’s impeach and remove Ginsburg right now for gross incompetence and violation of her sworn oath to uphold the law.

      1. Ginsburg: she is a doddering old fool. keep her on the radar and in the public eyes as long as possible, it’s very helpful

  10. Sen. Hirono seems to view this confirmation process through the lens of gender identity politics. It’s really unhelpful to divide the polity based on immutables such as gender. It’s unproductive. It leads nowhere except talking past each other, defensive thinking, and gridlock.

    1. She wants to do it, it’s her fault. Maybe the male-Democrat voters in Hawaii will quit smoking pot and eating too much poi and get up and get busy and put a man into her office. They should for sure

      Oh, just for fun, here is a Japanese icon of “PATRIARCHY”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPAZQ6mhRcU

      we are decadent, but we do not have to be that way forever, we can choose

  11. Why? Because she is a woman she is to be believed and all of the men are to shut up. Maybe if it were not for mattress girl and the Duke Lacrosse scandal that might hold water but with such public women lying about it, Hirono’s attitude is just sexist.

    1. D M – Hirono got the “Dear Colleague” letter from the Obama administration. She does not realize Trump is President now. 😉

      1. Paul C. That’s great. I called Mark Shields (PBS & CNN) once back in the 1980’s.
        He wasn’t there, but his staffer asked if i would like his home number! I said sure, and called him. I gave him my name straight up. I always do that because it makes the person think he should know who you are. By the end of our chat, he realized he did not know me, and was curious as to how I got his number! I threw it away after we hung up.

        1. Cindy Bragg – I always keep the numbers of my Congress Critters and call them as needed. Flake is useless, Kyl is good. Biggs is excellent. Someone on tv said the wrong Senator from AZ died.

          1. Paul C…..yeah, I call, too. It’s a good practice. But tell me, .what does it profit Flake to be so hateful towards Trump…..It’s got to be more than the fact he’s leaving office and has nothing to lose…..right?

            1. Kavanaugh is DC establishment born and bred (father the ex dir of the trade association of the toiletries industry). He was employed over the years by Kenneth Starr (2x), Alex Kozinski, Anthony Kennedy, and Alberto Gonzales. And, of course, he’s a member of the Federalist Society. You couldn’t find more of an inner ringer. This is a courtesy Trump’s done for the insider nexus, so it would be bizarre for Flake and Corker to be making an issue of this to stab Trump.

      1. I’m not sure but I’m sorry you are having the same problem.

        As to this post, yes Ms. Ford should be heard. The FBI as of just recently stated they will not investigate her claim. She says she won’t speak unless they do. I don’t understand her reasoning on this matter. If something like this happened to her there is no reason to wait for an FBI investigation before speaking up.

        If you go to @jaredbeck (one of the lawyers litigating the DNC fraud lawsuit, which again took a very strange turn just this week) he talks about how both of these people are deep staters. More deep state BS makes some sense of the situation.

        If Ms. Ford backs down on this because it was all part of some game she willingly played a part of, I just want her to know she can go to HEL@. Women are raped everyday. A lot of times we are called liars for saying we were raped (ask victims of priests about that). Rape isn’t a game. You don’t make false allegations, you don’t use it to get another human being and others don’t get to dismiss claims of rape because it’s committed by powerful men.

        The truth needs to come out.

        1. I agree.

          And I have been experiencing delays in my comments posting ever since Word Mess got updated. Must be some technical glitch.

    1. Almost the same way here Jill.

      My IT person sayz I’m wasting to much time on the PC anyway so the lil punk won’t upgrade my old operating system & browser.

  12. O.T. but important, concerning a Constitutional Crisis:

    The president gave an order to declassify information and the Gang of 8 as well as intel agencies are refusing to follow that order. “In the letter, the lawmakers “express profound alarm” at the decision to “intervene in an ongoing law enforcement investigation that may implicate the President himself or those around him.”

    “Any decision by your offices to share this material with the President or his lawyers will violate longstanding Department of Justice polices, as well as assurances you have provided to us.”

    The letter then demands that the agencies brief the Gang of Eight before releasing the materials “to anyone at the White House.”

    Find this at Zero Hedge.

  13. Prof. Ford’s request to be heard has been accommodated fairly. It’s her turn for her actions to match her request. Ford has no more right to be believed than Kavanaugh. The FBI looked at her letter and declined to investigate further.

    James Woods had a blunt, but correct, response to Hirono’s sexist comment yesterday. Let’s hope the senator just momentarily lost her cool and those comments don’t reflect the way she approaches her daily work.

  14. This article quoted “she will not testify unless the FBI launched an investigation. The news has continually stated that she will NOT testify until an FBI investigation has been completed. I tend to believe all of the different news reports. That said,
    Ford is being played like a fiddle by the dem’s, and the hell with her reputation, that the dem’s are happy to destroy if they can get the nominee derailed. Now you see who the real Enemies Of The State are. And they take NO PRISONERS.
    If the Republicans don’t get it, and fight fire with fire, they will be accountable for the biggest failure of the best form of government and opportunity the world has ever seen!

  15. I was in an airport waiting area with a tv blasting and several old guys there were talking about having this Hiromo locked up in “a Japanese Internment Camp”. What did they mean by that? America could never have such a thing. Could it?

    1. Of course that was ignorant and disgusting but that was a private conversation between two morons.
      This Star Chamber setup with accusers trying to stay secret and then making demands that we spend resources to investigate a matter that cannot be investigated without her statement, is unAmerican.

      1. After my comment I looked up the phrase on google and found theKorematsu decision written by Hugo Black which upheld the federal government roundup of Japanese Americans, some were citizens, and putting them in aconcentration camps out in California. Those two old guys knew what they were talking about.

        1. a shameful episode in American history considering the high quality of the Japanese community at that time.

          J Edgar Hoover was against it btw. I was surprised but they had a big series on NPR recently. Yes I force myself to listen to NPR garbage

          I don’t hold Hiromo’s ancestry against the Japanese American community. She is just a fool.

          You can be sure in Japan she would not have made it into office. Ha. The “PATRIARCHY’ there is alive and well, if old and greying

Leave a Reply