Manchin faces firestorm at home following Kavanaugh vote
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Danielle Walker cried on Joe Manchin's shoulder after she shared her story of sexual assault in the senator's office. She thought he listened.
The 42-year-old Morgantown woman said she was both devastated and furious when Manchin became the only Democrat in the U.S. Senate to support President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
"I feel raped all over again," Walker told The Associated Press.
A day after Manchin broke with his party on what may be the most consequential vote of the Trump era, the vulnerable Democrat is facing a political firestorm back home. While Republicans — including one of the president's sons — are on the attack, the most passionate criticism is coming from Manchin's very own Democratic base, a small but significant portion of the electorate he needs to turn out in force to win re-election next month.
Walker, a first-time Democratic candidate for the state legislature, said she may not vote at all in the state's high-stakes Senate election. Julia Hamilton, a 30-year-old educator who serves on the executive committee of the Monongalia County Democratic Party, vowed to sit out the Senate race as well.
"At some you have to draw a line," Hamilton said. "I have heard from many, many people — especially women. They won't be voting for Manchin either."
Manchin defended his vote in a Sunday interview as being based on fact, not emotion. He praised the women who shared their stories of sexual trauma, Walker among but said he "could not find any type of link or connection" that Kavanaugh was a rapist.
The woman who testified to the Senate about Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford, accused him of sexual assault but not rape when they were high school students more than 30 years ago. Two other women stepped forward late in the confirmation process to accuse the appeals court judge of sexual misconduct in high school or college. Their stories resonated with women who had suffered sexual trauma and fueled opposition to Kavanaugh's confirmation.
"They weren't going to be satisfied, or their healing process, until we convicted this person," Manchin told The Associated Press. "I couldn't do it. You talk about two wrongs trying to make a right. It just wasn't in my heart and soul to do that."
Manchin insisted over and over that his vote wasn't based on politics.
There is little doubt, however, that his vote was in line with the wishes of many West Virginia voters, who gave Trump a victory in 2016 by 42 percentage points. There simply aren't enough Democrats in the state to re-elect Manchin. He needs a significant chunk of Trump's base to win.
One West Virginia Trump supporter, 74-year-old Linda Ferguson, explained the politics bluntly as she watched the parade at Saturday's Mountain State Forest Festival in Elkins.
"If he didn't vote for Kavanaugh he could have kissed his seat goodbye," Ferguson said.
While he may have represented the majority of his state, Manchin's political challenges are far from over.
The clash over Kavanaugh, who was confirmed by the Senate on Saturday, has injected new energy into each party's political base. While that may help Democrats in their fight for the House majority, which is largely taking place in America's suburbs, there are signs it's hurting vulnerable Democrats in rural Republican-leaning states like North Dakota, Missouri West Virginia.
For much of the year, Manchin has held a significant lead in public and private polls over his Republican opponent, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. Yet Republican operatives familiar with the race report a definite tightening over the last week.
In an interview, Morrisey called Democrats' fight against Kavanaugh a "three-ring circus" that "energized a lot of people in West Virginia."
He acknowledged that Manchin voted the right way for the state, but called the vote "irrelevant" because another swing vote, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, had already given Kavanaugh the final vote he needed.
"He waited until the last possible minute after Susan Collins declared for him to take a position, effectively allowing Maine to decide how West Virginia's going to decide," Morrisey charged. "We shouldn't reward that kind of cowardice."
Echoing the attack, Donald Trump Jr., mockingly called Manchin "a real profile in courage" on Twitter.
When asked about the social media jab, the West Virginia senator slapped away the insult from the younger Trump.
"Donald Trump's entitled to his opinion, he's just not entitled to his own facts to justify what he's saying. He doesn't really know anything," Manchin told the AP.
The Democrat conceded that he followed Collins' lead out of "respect" — he didn't want to get in the way of her high-profile Friday afternoon announcement on the Senate floor.
"Nothing would have changed my vote," Manchin declared. "Susan took the lead, Susan did the due diligence. ... She's going to give her speech and I'm not going to jump in front of 3 o'clock. I'm just not going to do it."
That wasn't good enough for Tammy Means, a 57-year-old florist from Charleston, who was among thousands tailgating outside West Virginia University's football stadium in Morgantown on Saturday.
Means, a registered Democrat who voted for Trump, said she also voted for Manchin in the past.
"I'm not going to anymore. Nope," she said with a laugh as she sipped a Smirnoff Ice. She's glad Manchin voted for Kavanaugh, but said, "He's just doing it so he can get elected."
Across the parking lot, 63-year-old John Vdovjac said he was deeply disappointed by Manchin's vote. Still, the Democrat said he'd probably vote for Manchin this fall.
"I recognize the position he's in because the state's heavily Republican now," said Vdovjac, a retired educator from Wheeling, as he helped grill hotdogs and hamburgers. "But he's lost my loyalty.
Manchin knows he needs to explain his vote to his constituents, although he didn't have any public events scheduled this weekend. Before and after the AP interview, conducted at Charleston's International House of Pancakes, he told everyone who would listen — including his waitress — that his Kavanaugh vote was not based on emotion.
"I made my decision based on facts," the senator told Kevin Estep, a 57-year-old registered Democrat and Trump voter who was eating buttered pancakes with his family.
"You hang in there and vote your heart," Estep, who lives in nearby St. Albans, told the senator.
After Manchin left the building, Estep warned that the #MeToo movement "is like a dam that's about to break open."
Asked whether he'd support Manchin this fall, he responded, "Always."
As a survivor, the confirmation of Kavanaugh did not make me feel that I was assaulted all over again. Instead, it was an affirmation that due process and fairness should prevail.
Democrats AND Republicans who choose to use victims of sexual assault to further their own political careers should use extreme caution. Not all victims will vote based on emotions only.
Without a proper investigation into the accusations, where do you see this "fairness or due process"?
All accusations needed to be investigated. As it is, none were.
You mean the 4 that did NOT deny that it happened?
Doesn't matter, an investigation is still called for. Again, no evidence that she was wrong either, hence the need to investigate.
Again, no evidence against her either, so again a need for an investigation.
Who has more credibility, a person that comes forward with a claim that opens her up to be ridiculed by the entire country, or the person who has already been caught lying to Congress that says it didn't happen?
Not true.
The four that said they had no idea what she was talking about.
One of those people is a sitting federal judge with a 20+ year impeccable record of public service. The other(s) stand to gain significantly from the book deals, talk show appearances, and lecture fees for years to come.
What's not true, that accusations should be investigated?
Stop lying, they said that they did not remember.
Please explain to me how there could be an investigation when accuser and accused were never interviewed? Plus, how do you investigate a 30 year old claim, in 3 days?
One of the people is a sitting federal judge with multiple sexual assault allegations against him, who has demonstrably lied under oath to Congress. The 2nd is a lady, with no current book deal, who is opening herself up to ridicule.
Are you talking about a fishing expedition that would last for months and come up empty
I personally would have liked something more inbetween. Personally I dont feel like this was an investigation done in earnest by the power that is.
Understandable but IMO: All of this leaves a as they say "a bad taste in the mouths" of so many of us.
I also saw NO way out of where were were being seen by everyone as FAIR. No matter what happened to much at stake and too many way involved even within the masses. It was a no win sit for the whole damn country as I see it.
That saddens me a little.
Maryland doesn't have a statute of limitations regarding sexual assault. Dr. Ford can take her case to the Montgomery County Police and the Prosecutor. They can conduct an investigation into her allegations. Meanwhile, without corroboration of any of the witnesses, or assailants that she listed...it is only fair that her accusations not be considered when confirming Kavanaugh.
We knew Trump and the GOP were corrupt and didn't want a real investigation but this episode reveals a significant structural flaw in our system where the investigating agency has no independence whatsoever from the executive who nominated Judge Rapist or the majority party which will confirm him.
You sound like a very angry white guy.
Don't blame me for that. The website must be having issues.
I've heard this one repeatedly. Tell us please, did Dr. Ford not give a full statement to the SJC?
As even Rachel Mitchell noted that's not remotely the same as an FBI investigation. Rather amusing that the senate (or Trump) would prohibit the FBI from interviewing the victim and the perp in addition to ignoring the 42+ other witnesses who offered relevant information.
By the way Ford said that she had confidential evidence which she was willing to reveal to the FBI but was unwilling to give in public testimony.
Ask Bill Cosby. The FBI and many local law enforcement have "cold case" teams that specialize in that sort of stuff.
Wow, just wow.
Are you really that ignorant on how memory works with traumatic events?
Only fair for right wingers that put party before country.
Jesus! You do understand the difference between a prepared statement and an interview with law enforcement officers trained to talk to accusers and accused.....don't you?????
Um, it was the democrats that called for an investigation, and when Flake jumped in and recommended a "no more than one week" investigation, every democrat on the committee bobble headed their support.
The very next day, those same bobble head liberals realized that they put a finite finish to their bullshit and started saying one week was not enough.
Trump called their bluff and basically told them to F off.
Result? Repeat after me...JUSTICE Brett Kavanaugh.
You're welcome.
That none were investigated.
Yes. Exactly. They had no idea what she was talking about.
They already had sworn statements from Ford & Kavanaugh, as well as their televised testimonies. However, I'm sure they sent someone to the scene to collect forensic evidence...oh....wait....
Perjury charges? No?
Do you really think any law enforcement officer would accept any of that during a criminal investigation? Simple answer, absolutely NOT!
Do you think any law enforcement officer investigating the report of a crime would not WANT to interview the accused or accuser? Simple answer, absolutely NOT!
Do you think any law enforcement officer would accept any questioning by a private attorney instead of an interrogation? Simple answer, absolutely NOT!
Do I really need to say "properly" investigated?
Again you are twisting their words for your lie. They neither denied or confirmed the action.
Meaningless, they had Clinton's sworn testimony about Lewinski, are you saying that they shouldn't have investigated further??? People lie! Law enforcement officers have been trained to work their way to find the truth. Why do you think Trump is so terrified to testify to Mueller?
Not with that Republican controlled committee. They would have ignored anything just to vote him in.
You can say what you like. We both know that you would never be satisfied with any investigation that didn't result in Kavanaugh not being on the Court.
To you "lie" just seems to mean anything not expressed exactly how you want it to be. They neither denied or confirmed the action. Because they had no idea what she was talking about.
Sworn statements are "meaningless". Riiiight. Is that still true when they result in the outcome you want?
Not generally under oath.
"Truth" about a supposed party 36 years ago that only one person remembers.
Wow, what am I thinking now? Nope, wrong again, just like you're wrong in your above claim.
Again you are trying to rephrase what they said to support your lie..
Wait...let me look....nope, never said that . Now you are trying to change what I said to fit the lie you are trying to propagate. Let me say it 1 more time, I'll talk slowly...
"A...sworn...statement...will...never...replace...law...enforcement...interviews...because...the...interviewing...officer...cannot...challenge...anything...in...it...or...root...out...the...truth, as...they...are...trained...to...do."
You don't get out much, do you? How many of Trump's people have lied under oath, or to sworn statements? Answer is most.
So now you don't believe the party happened? Are you seriously claiming that cold cases are impossible to solve?
6 cold cases that took decades to solve
10 COLD CASES SOLVED
5 Big Cold Cases That Had Major Breaks in 2017
Cold case solved after 32 years when murder suspect turns self in -- despite no police leads
17 Fucked-Up Murder Cold Cases That Took Decades To Solve
Indeed! You need to keep that hush, hush, super secret, on the down low, though.
How many sickening times ?
Until one gets the pressured answer THEY WANT ?
I hear that pressure investigations like that get thrown out of court more times than not.
So, you are claiming that her prepared statement doesn't carry any weight at all?
You mean like Benghazi? Nope, just one legitimate (unrestricted) investigation.
Do you hear voices in your head often? You don't even bother post links from where you "heard" it???
Done !
Now what ?
"You don't even bother post links from where you "heard" it???"
"As seen on TV" !
No twisting necessary. Either Dr. Ford's Opening statement and answers to questions - all under oath - were sufficient, or they weren't. What more would FBI investigators learn from speaking directly to her that was not in her opening statement or answers? The FBI had her letter to Feinstein, the Washington Post article and her legal reps media appearances to consider as well. Perhaps Dr. Ford had yet another version of events to relay? If so - you're right - they should have questioned her and saved a couple of days of investigation. They questioned the key players in Dr. Ford's rendition of the incident...without corroboration. 'She said - He said'.
Technically, when Feinstein first received her letter...an in-depth investigation should have begun. Seven weeks would have given sufficient time for an investigation into the veracity of Dr. Ford's allegations. All of that could have been handled in private...without revealing Dr. Ford's name. That investigation should have been the determining factor in whether a public hearing was necessary. Instead, Dr. Ford's legal team made that determination. Dr. Ford's legal team could have hired a therapist trained to question sexual assault victims. Instead, they had her take a polygraph and submitted conditions for the hearing. Seven weeks would have been more than sufficient, so when the investigation occurs after a hearing and it is limited - based on that hearing's testimony by the accuser and the accused - crying 'foul' seems rather pointless.
Done? Since when? A 3 day investigation where they are not even allowed to interview the affected parties is not a legitimate investigation. Try again.
Of course it was...every television news channel has a website where you can view the articles. Unfortunately you cannot provide links to the voices in your head.
Sorry, but if you are going to be this willfully ignorant, there is nothing I can do for you. If you truly believed your claim, please tell me what the point was for having her testify in front of Congress, when they already had her statement???
You're busily distracting yourself from your own denial.
Riiiiight.
If you maintain the definition of "lie" as "things offensive to Ozzwald", then I understand why you think Kavanaugh lied.
Look at 1.1.25 again. Because you actually did say that. If you didn't mean that, by all means clarify or retract your statement.
I don't need to. You're hoisting yourself on your own petard quite nicely without my help.
Actually I do get out. Quite a bit. Often enough, in fact, to know better than to take everything on DailyKos or Huffy Post as accurate.
I don't know. By her own account, Dr. Ford is a highly emotional, fragile, fearful person attempting to remember details from 36 years ago. The idea that we should take her word as gospel over a federal judge with a long and impeccable record of public service is utterly ridiculous.
No. Cold cases with no details and no forensic evidence are impossible to solve.
Liberals don't like to hear this (let's face it, young liberals don't like to hear anything they disagree with) but Dr. Ford is a victim of her own fear. Had she reported the incident at the time, memories would have been fresh, the truth would have been easy to determine, and she would have been vindicated. She didn't report it because she was afraid of what people would think.
Well when Kavanaugh confesses and turns himself in, I'll concede you were correct.
Except you did. You called it "meaningless". Your own words betray you.
Wow, so you know what I am thinking better than I do? Prove it, what am I thinking right now? Put up or shut up.
You look at it again yourself, you're picking out words regardless of how they are used. I said that the fact that they had the statements was meaningless, no law enforcement organization would accept those statements at face value when they are investigating criminal activity. Investigators are trained for interviewing suspects and victims for a reason, you cannot interview a piece of paper.
The statements themselves are very useful for comparing what the interviewees state to law enforcement.
Yes, we all know about Brietbart and American Thinker that you like to go to.
Nobody is taking her claims as gospel, WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE DEMANDING A PROPER INVESTIGATION!!! Or were you forgetting about that part?
How do you determine that there is no details or evidence WITHOUT AN INVESTIGATION???
Which is why 70% of sexual assaults are not reported. Fear of being treated the way Dr. Ford actually was treated. Are you forgetting that she does have documentation showing that she has talked about this years ago? She talked to friends about it and a therapist.
I find it interesting that after I provide you with documentation about 39 cold cases being solved, that you decide to comment on 1 and discount the other 38. Tends to show just how much you have to grasp at straws to make your point.
Google Coerced Confessions. Google works.
Of course....you already knew that.
Try 3 months of everyone being able to "Investigate?" Kavanaugh....including numerous odd unconfirmable letters and so-called "come to Jesus" MSN interviews of those same folks.
if a teen girl says that her teacher tried to rape her in the classroom one day and no one was around to witness it mean her claims are no longer valid not be taken into consideration say if he is being promoted to Principle?
Lack of witnesses does not invalidate a claim of assault. What did the girl do immediately after the assault? Did she tell a friend, or another teacher...did she write about it in her journal? Did she wait 30 years to tell a therapist and another 6 years to bring it to the attention of the school board?
I served on a jury where a male was being charged with kidnapping and assault. It was the girl's actions immediately after the incident that convicted that man.
Corroboration isn't necessarily a 'witness'.
your words, not mine.
Did you see the word 'answers'...or bother to read the rest of my post? I would explain, but it is apparent that a sworn statement and answers to questions under oath are not sufficient for you. It was for the FBI.
Perhaps you're bothered by the fact that Dr. Ford's legal team could not steer the committee or an FBI investigation.
Yes... my words. Without corroboration 30+ years after the alleged assault - Kavanaugh was confirmed.
Dr. Ford didn't take immediate action...she told no one about it until 30 years later...she didn't write about it in a journal. The people she listed as having been in attendance don't remember the gathering she describes. No matter how one tries to skew things to fit their own opinions, there is no corroboration of her rendition of events.
I am not claiming that she was never assaulted...just that her memories from 36 years ago may be distorted.
Were you the one who used the phrase "weaponization of victimhood" last week?
I thought that was brilliant.
No, but it certainly fits.
It seems a wannabe rapist with a bad temperament was the GOP's best candidate for SCOTUS. If Kavanaugh was their very best I wonder who else they're planning to push onto the court?
The good news is that this will only serve to hurt the GOP by motivating women and ethical men and the country will only benefit from that.
I also love your efforts here to demonize sexual assault victims who do come forward. While Manchin fully deserves whatever blowback he gets, hopefully the greater rage will be directed at the GOP where it truly belongs.
This episode especially didn't play well with independents. Your side has lost them and that too is a very good thing for the country.
And despite the lone GOP vote against confirming Judge Rapist, it showed that there really is no such thing as a moderate Republican anymore.
Very revealing of the profoundly poor ethics of the GOP that he was your very best candidate.
Yeah kind of like nominating Hillaryious crooked Hillary as a presidential contender.
It is apparent that you have tried and convicted Kavanaugh since you've given him the label of 'wannabe rapist'. It is your opinion...and you have that right. Fortunately, our Nation uses due process rather than public opinion...and there is a presumption of innocence first. Yes, we hear many times that this was just a 'job interview'. I have an extensive HR background and know that a job candidate who does not get a promotion or position based on uncorroborated accusations can launch a lawsuit - and win. Yes, even a job interview must be conducted with fairness.
Meanwhile, you can make believe that the Democrats had nothing but perfect thoughts and actions throughout this debacle...but don't be too surprised to see that Republican and Independent voters end up having their say in November's elections. To some, it is frightening to think that the party claiming to be on the side of victims won't hesitate to toss them out into the public arena for their own political gains.
Actually most polls show that most voters haven't changed their voting intentions:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/410296-poll-most-voters-unlikely-to-change-support-in-key-senate-races-based%3famp
The GOP proved their senators still believe in due process. The Dems proved ethics don't matter to them.
No, I just expect an actual investigation of what Judge Rapist himself admits is a very credible accusation. What we got instead was a coverup and a sham investigation controlled by the people who wanted no investigation at all.
.
Like most conservatives you seem confused as to whether this was a criminal trial or an interview for a job promotion. By the way your Fuhrer opposes due process even in criminal trials so his calling for it now is rather amusing and hypocritical.
.
FYI, Independents aren't on your side here.
Manchin saved himself from being one of red state Democrats who are either sinking in the polls or just can't break out of a neck and neck race.
He needs to just put an R after his name and be done with it
That seems like an overreaction.
Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't, but if it was, it seems supremely hypocritical to attack him for making a political calculation. I don't believe for a second that every Democrat who voted against Kavanaugh or every Republican who voted for him did so after an open-minded, sober analysis of his qualifications.
"Feelings".
The fact is that this woman cannot identify what exactly will cause her to "feel" better. Apparently we're all just supposed to be slaves to her emotions until she doesn't "feel" that way anymore.
????? What is your intent with that comment apart from trying to shame a sexual assault victim?
I doubt many women will ever forget what the GOP did here.
Other than the pussyhat wearing snowflakes in vagina costumes yelling at the sky I think most people have already moved on.
Democrats lost in their chicanery and everyone seen it what it was for.
Not likely given the massive gender gap which resulted. Your side already was supported by only a minority of women but now it's dramatically lower.....57% of women now want Trump impeached.
I love how Kavanaugh not only had net negative ratings throughout but now has the lowest poll results of any SCOTUS nominee ever, and he's tied for last place in confirmation votes. A very bad nominee indeed.
I just love it when someone tell me what I am, You don't know a fucking thing about me. Thank you.
Ah yes Have faith in your polls because they mean so much. Hillaryious Hillary in a landslide
I don't even care who took this poll. Unfortunately the Triggered pussyhat wearing snowflakes don't run this country.
SAY IT......SAY IT. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH. Doesn't it sound sweet?
Apparently the polls you're whining about were correct - millions more supported Hillary than the traitor who was installed by the EC.
That 57% percent of women isn't the only huge problem your side has because you've now lost at least an entire generation of voters......Millennials are overwhelmingly opposed to Trump, Judge Rapist, and the GOP in general.
Nobody can be shamed without their permission. People who complain about "xyz shaming"
The fact remains that the woman who spoke to Senator Manchin and later said "I feel raped all over again" is awash in her "feelings". She wants the United States of America to make a Supreme Court justice nomination based on her emotions about some personal trauma that had nothing to do with Brett Kavanaugh.
Will that make her trauma go away? Will she be "cured" of her emotional distress? Will it be "all better" if Kavanaugh is removed? No? Then where does this road end? How many other no votes will she require before she is made whole? How long are we as a nation be held hostage by the "feelings" that don't ever seem to get better?
This will last less than 30 days. Something else will come to the front and the nation's attention will move. That something will change exactly as many minds as this whole episode did....zero. BTW, there are huge legions of women who don't give a shit about Christine Ford being not raped 36 years ago, and they will care about it even less in a few weeks time.
I love this chart . Very bad news for the misogynistic GOP:
NPR also has a great summary about how misogyny no longer helps the GOP, especially in comparison to 27 years ago when a sexual harasser was put on the court:
Please post a link to the original article.
Thanks
-
Who are you directing that to?
cms5.
When I clicked "Seeded Content" it should have been a link to the original article-- instead there was a mistake and it only linked to a picture.
Never mind-- I found it. Several media outlets carried the same story. It was originally by AP. (This is not unusual).
Not sure what happened, but it has been restored.
Democrats sure do lean heavy on these "I feel" letters and personal moments to further an agenda.
Manchin said It wasn't about politics. Colin said it wasn't about Politics. Both said it was about ACTUAL "Rule of Law".
Gee......those two bastards are just assholes huh !
Actual "Rules of Law"...….. Pfffffffft.
Well as politicians will, they can say whatever they choose to, but without a doubt this was and is about politics at its basest level. Both parties should take a page from the history of the Roman Senate and fall on their swords, oops that may take a bit of courage on their parts, that won't work.
Neither party has the high ground any longer ( not sure if they ever did), cannot wait until one of them begins pontificating to us, oops already started. More Kabuki theater coming soon.
Both could be gone for their vote of Yes.....at least according to the Uber Screaming "Left" and their Media "Cohurts" that is.
It's pure projection. Democrats actually have a long history of making a lot of their decisions and policies based on their feelings instead of facts, so they assume other people do the same thing.
Agreed....
Both Voted Correctly though. "Rule of Law".....rules the day with those two it seems ! Good for them, and us.