DiscussMormonism.com

Something occurred to me today while listening to the hearings.

During the Kavanaugh questioning, there was a sidetrack discussion in which Feinstein's role in the timeline was discussed.

Feinstein: "Let me be clear. I did not hide Dr. Ford's allegations. I did not leak her story."

As a reminder, here is what we apparently know:

Ford - Kavanaugh Timeline

The timeline notes:

July 30

Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in California, quietly sends a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the letter, she alleges that Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted her while they were in high school. Feinstein does not release the letter publicly, at Ford's request.

Sept. 12

Feinstein sends Ford's letter to the FBI after several days of rumors about its existence leaking out from Democratic senators. The bureau puts the letter in Kavanaugh's background check file but does not launch a criminal investigation, in part because the statute of limitations on the alleged sexual assault expired years earlier.

During the hearings today, Feinstein insists that news of the letter didn't leak from her office. A few days later, articles in the New Yorker and Washington Post reveal Ford's name and accusations.

So here's my question. What was Feinstein planning on doing with the letter and knowledge of the accusations? She sat for six weeks, all through the vetting and confirmation hearings, without mentioning it.

She says Dr. Ford was "stalked by the press and forced to come forward." Well what if she hadn't been forced? What if she had just sent the letter and then kept quiet and the letter was the only record of the allegation? If the accusations hadn't been otherwise reported in the press, when was Feinstein going to tell the committee about the accusation?

I think she should've asked Dr. Ford if she could contact the FBI and the committee to have her allegations investigated and arrange for a private, safe, and secure interview with Dr. Ford and anyone else she felt could corroborate her events.

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was never done nor offered by Feinstein?

- Doc

cinepro wrote:If the accusations hadn't been otherwise reported in the press, when was Feinstein going to tell the committee about the accusation?

This question assumes she was destined to do it. How do you know she would?

The whole timing of the revelation and Feinstein's role is a distraction from Ford herself. Of course Republicans want to make it about Feinstein. Going after Ford is a loser. They'd rather hypocritically whine about process.

Some Schmo wrote:This question assumes she was destined to do it. How do you know she would?

That's my question. Did Feinstein know that Ford would later talk to the press or otherwise let her story out? If not, was Feinstein ever going to reveal the contents of the letter? If so, when, since she hadn't done it all during the confirmation hearings, even the private ones?

On September 8, Kavanaugh had completed all of his hearings without a single hint of sexual assault being mentioned. So what was Feinstein thinking on that day? If she wasn't "destined to do it", does that mean we never would have known about the allegations if they hadn't been leaked otherwise?

What if instead of the letter going to Feinstein, it had ended up on Orrin Hatch's desk, and he put it in a drawer and didn't mention it until it had leaked to the press six weeks later? Would it still seem like no big deal?

This obviously doesn't have any bearing on whether Kavanaugh is guilty or not. I'm just wondering why no one is asking this question.

I don't think the timeline actual supports Feinstein leaking it, and while I've posted this before on the board apparently no one actually read it so here it is again:
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/bre ... feinstein/

The letter took a circuitous route to Feinstein, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. It purportedly describes an incident that was relayed to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who authored the letter* and sent it to Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Democrat who represents the area.

Eshoo passed the letter to her fellow Californian, Feinstein. Word began leaking out on the Hill about it, and Feinstein was approached by Democrats on the committee, but she rebuffed them, Democratic sources said. Feinstein’s fellow senators want their own opportunity to gauge whether or not the letter should be made public, rather than leaving it to Feinstein to make that call unilaterally. The sources were not authorized to speak on the record, and said that no senators on the committee, other than Feinstein, have so far been able to view the letter.

My money is on Rep. Anna Eshoo or her staff being the source for rumors about the letter being leaked. But I'd also point out that the very first contact made was between Ford and the Washington Post so there were reporters looking for a story at the same time.

The timeline seems to be:

Ford reached out to the Washington Post tip line in early July.

Ford reached out to her local Representative, Anna Eshoo around the same time.

She authored her letter and provided it to Rep. Eshoo's office who promised to hand-deliver it to Senator Feinstein sometime near the end of July.

Feinstein held the letter in confidence at Ford's request.

Ford read the letter to the reporter at the Post with whom she had established contact.

Ford hired Katz who set up the polygraph test in anticipation that if the allegations were to come forward Ford's honesty would be called into question.

Katz provided the Post with the polygraph results. Ford still held off on going public. Feinstein continued to hold the letter in confidence even as rumors of it's existence began to build. Senate Democrats knew enough to be pressuring Feinstein to provide them with the letter.

The Intercept (the link I posted above) ran a story about the letter's rumored existence to the public on September 11th.

The day after the Intercept article, Feinstein released a statement acknowledging the letter's existence but, "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities." Feinstein forwarded the letter to the FBI.

"The FBI redacted Ford’s name and sent the letter to the White House to be included in Kavanaugh’s background file, according to a Judiciary Committee aide. The White House sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, making it available to all senators."

September 13th, NYT reports the letter's content includes allegations of sexual misconduct.

The New Yorker publishes the letter on September 14th: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... n-congress but with Ford's name redacted. At this point, it could have come from any Senator who received a copy from the FBI with Ford's name redacted.

Around this same period, Ford is being contacted by reporters with questions, indicating it is only a matter for time before her names is associated with the letter.

On September 16th, Ford goes public.

cinepro wrote:

Some Schmo wrote:This question assumes she was destined to do it. How do you know she would?

That's my question. Did Feinstein know that Ford would later talk to the press or otherwise let her story out? If not, was Feinstein ever going to reveal the contents of the letter?

By all accounts it would appear she had no intention of doing so. Ford had determined that Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed so going public would only result in damage to her and her family. Feinstein appears to have been respecting Ford's request to keep the letter in confidence.

Again, I suspect that the original leaks of the letter's existance came from either Eshoo's office (my bet) or the Post.

cinepro wrote:On September 8, Kavanaugh had completed all of his hearings without a single hint of sexual assault being mentioned. So what was Feinstein thinking on that day? If she wasn't "destined to do it", does that mean we never would have known about the allegations if they hadn't been leaked otherwise?

We'll never know. I take Feinstein at her word that she didn't disclose the information out of respect for Ford's wishes.

I imagine knowing about before it was leaked, however, was driving her nuts. I can picture many long nights of her thinking, "If only she'd come forward..."

cinepro wrote:What if instead of the letter going to Feinstein, it had ended up on Orrin Hatch's desk, and he put it in a drawer and didn't mention it until it had leaked to the press six weeks later? Would it still seem like no big deal?

There would be a huge difference between Feinstein withholding it and Orin Hatch, for what I would think were obvious reasons. What motivation does Feinstein have for withholding it (politically speaking)?

cinepro wrote:This obviously doesn't have any bearing on whether Kavanaugh is guilty or not. I'm just wondering why no one is asking this question.

Um... did you watch the hearing? About the timing of the revelation was all Republican senators asked. Kavanaugh didn't even need to be there for it.

Jesus damned Christ.

Feinstein didn't leak the letter. She didn't disclose it's existence until it's existence was leaked at which point she forwarded it to the FBI who provided a copy to the Senate Judiciary with Ford's name redacted. At that point, almost anyone could have been the final source for the leak of the actual letter.

honorentheos wrote:Jesus damned Christ.

Feinstein didn't leak the letter.

What are you responding to here?

Some Schmo wrote:

honorentheos wrote:Jesus ____ Christ.

Feinstein didn't leak the letter.

What are you responding to here?

The entire line of reasoning.