SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[El_Machinae]

... except if the leak was against her consent, then it's actually compounding the damage

 

[Lexicus]

... except if the leak was against her consent, then it's actually compounding the damage

And still fits the trope. Only Feinstein becomes the central villain, while Ford needs to be dismissed as "confused" or similar.

 

[Sommerswerd]

C'mon man, there's no real surprise there. The Trumpist base is totally identified by their eagerness to believe. Any tactic is going to work in those circumstances. Shift to the leaking to get away from the topic of the leak? Sure. Clinton whataboutism? Sure. Just a straight up absurd denial and move on? Sure. False equivalence of the "dems do it too" variety? Sure. You can't take how well something works as an indication of brilliance, given the target audience.

Never use "purty gud" when "brilliant" will do.

In retrospect, I should have said "spectacular, tremendous, fantastic"... would've fit the situation better... that's a missed opportunity. My buss.

Well that's hardly a tactic that was invented by the Trump Administration. It works doubly well in this case because there is so much cultural priming to think of rape in these terms anyway. Cherubic Judge Kavanaugh and the scheming, evil women - Feinstein and Ford - trying to bring him down. A discussion about the leak and what motivated it etc falls right into that cultural narrative.

Lex I think you're forgetting that this isn't the first time they've gone to this well. It started almost right out of the gate when there were all these leaks about the chaos and infighting going on in the administration during the Steve Bannon era. Trump and Kellyanne Conway immediately turned it around to make the story about the traitorous leakers rather than the dysfunctional administration. It worked well then and they've been playing that tune ever since.

 

[HoloDoc]

Never use "purty gud" when "brilliant" will do.

In retrospect, I should have said "spectacular, tremendous, fantastic"... would've fit the situation better... that's a missed opportunity. My buss.
Lex I think you're forgetting that this isn't the first time they've gone to this well. It started almost right out of the gate when there were all these leaks about the chaos and infighting going on in the administration during the Steve Bannon era. Trump and Kellyanne Conway immediately turned it around to make the story about the traitorous leakers rather than the dysfunctional administration. It worked well then and they've been playing that tune ever since.

And of course, it plays into their whole "never question our authority" deal. Anyone who disagrees or undermines Fuhrer Trump is obviously a traitor, a Democrat plant, possibly working for China, etc..

 

[Farm Boy]

... except if the leak was against her consent, then it's actually compounding the damage

Consent is so quaint.

 

[El_Machinae]

And still fits the trope. Only Feinstein becomes the central villain, while Ford needs to be dismissed as "confused" or similar.

Yes and no. You have to retain the headspace to excoriate the leaker if the goal is to be on the victim's side.

I'd trade a Feinstein for a Kavanaugh any day. But they won't. It's a political reality, not a moral one

 

[Synobun]

Consent is so quaint.

Kavanaugh sure thought so.

 

[Farm Boy]

Doyee.

But it's so out of space even in this thread. Its... just... quaint. That's the right word for it.

 

[Berzerker]

Ford went to Eshoo's office before Feinstein so either could have leaked her name, or it could have been Ford herself or friends and acquaintances. I hope it was the latter.

 

[Lexicus]

Yes and no. You have to retain the headspace to excoriate the leaker if the goal is to be on the victim's side.

Not necessarily. It's possible to care about Ford's confidentiality but still believe that making her letter public was the right thing to do. I feel like the fact that our newest Supreme Court Justice probably sexually assaulted someone is my (in case it's unclear, I really mean the whole public here, not just me personally) business too, not just hers. To be clear, I don't know ultimately what my opinion on that is - but I don't think "Ford wanted it confidential" is the only legitimate interest on the table there.

I'd trade a Feinstein for a Kavanaugh any day. But they won't. It's a political reality, not a moral one

I don't know what this means.

Lex I think you're forgetting that this isn't the first time they've gone to this well. It started almost right out of the gate when there were all these leaks about the chaos and infighting going on in the administration during the Steve Bannon era. Trump and Kellyanne Conway immediately turned it around to make the story about the traitorous leakers rather than the dysfunctional administration. It worked well then and they've been playing that tune ever since.

It's not the first time the Trump Administration has done it, but look at virtually any high-profile leak exposing some sort of malfeasance and you will find those whose malfeasance was exposed tend to focus on the ethics of the leak itself and attempt to ignore or downplay what the leak exposed. One obvious example: Democrats' response to the hacked emails in 2016.

 

[HoloDoc]

In the 2016 e-mail hacking case the Democrats had a bit of a point though; it was a foreign power doing the hacking. Hacking is a fair bit different to leaking.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not necessarily. It's possible to care about Ford's confidentiality but still believe that making her letter public was the right thing to do.

Sure, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be punished for betraying that confidence.

There are many things that can be justified, but should not be tolerated. If it was so important to do, do it and take your lumps. That's literally what heroism is.

 

[Lexicus]

In the 2016 e-mail hacking case the Democrats had a bit of a point though; it was a foreign power doing the hacking. Hacking is a fair bit different to leaking.

Look, in that case I happen to agree that the ethics of the leak were more important than what was leaked in that case, but obviously not everyone shares that opinion. And as I never grow tired of pointing out, the real problem is that there are tens of millions of Americans who genuinely believe that the crime of leaking stuff about the Trump Administration is more important than the crimes detailed in the leaks.

Sure, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be punished for betraying that confidence.

There are many things that can be justified, but should not be tolerated. If it was so important to do, do it and take your lumps. That's literally what heroism is.

I believe that the leak did not happen with Feinstein's knowledge.

 

[metalhead]

... except if the leak was against her consent, then it's actually compounding the damage

Well that's another thing - did Dr. Ford say that the information was to be kept in strictest confidence no matter the circumstances? Or could/should/did she reasonably believe that she could trust Sen. Feinstein to exercise proper judgment in seeing that the information was handled appropriately, up to and including releasing it publicly?

The letter itself says "As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak." Did they speak? Was the ongoing confidentiality discussed? I don't think we know. But also, "keep confidential" can mean a lot of different things. Does it mean not to tell anyone? Only tell other Senators who you trust to keep it in confidence? Have it labeled committee confidential (which I think happened but am not sure about)?

There really isn't enough to go on to say with any certainty that Dr. Ford's confidence was betrayed, unless Dr. Ford herself said so.

 

[Berzerker]

in that case I happen to agree that the ethics of the leak were more important than what was leaked in that case

What was leaked? I thought it was emails that showed the DNC helping Hillary beat Bernie.

There really isn't enough to go on to say with any certainty that Dr. Ford's confidence was betrayed, unless Dr. Ford herself said so.

Feinstein said her office gave the letter to the FBI when reporters were knocking on Ford's door, so they didn't leak her identity...unless Feinstein is wrong or lying.

 

[Lexicus]

My understanding was that Dr. Ford wanted the letter (or at least, what the letter described) to come to the attention of the President when Kavanaugh was still on the shortlist of potential nominees. But because the letter did not reach Trump or his people in time, she accepted that to have any impact on the confirmation process the information would have to become public.

I think it was naive of her to believe that her information would have had any impact on Trump's decision. Trump, being a serial assaulter himself, obviously wouldn't care about the ethical dimension - the only issue would have been the "optics" or political impact of nominating a credibly-accused assaulter to the Court. And if, as I suspect, Kavanaugh was chosen in exchange for a pledge of loyalty to Trump, it's unlikely that political liability would have been a decisive consideration.

 

[Zkribbler]

What was leaked? I thought it was emails that showed the DNC helping Hillary beat Bernie.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Again I get to ask my never-answered question:

What did the DNC DO to help Hillary beat Bernie?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Again I get to ask my never-answered question:

What did the DNC DO to help Hillary beast Bernie?

Her Emails!

 

[Zkribbler]

Her Emails!

You're missing a subject and a verb.

 

[Gori the Grey]

That could be a subject.