Liberal democracy and capitalism have been the two commanding political and economic ideas of Western history since the 19th century. Now, however, the fate of these once-galvanizing global principles is increasingly uncertain. Democratic capitalism is showing signs of deep, systemic sickness in the United States, Europe and Australasia, even as varieties of state or authoritarian capitalism are slowly becoming entrenched around the world, particularly in China and Russia. In the developing world, democratic capitalism has always had a mixed reputation. While the West preached its freedoms at home, it happily engaged in political and economic exploitation abroad. The hypocrisy of colonialism is still lost on many in the West, who ask why so many people in the developing world have found the truths of Western political and economic freedom to be less than self-evident in their own national experiences.
Nevertheless, there is something elementally powerful about the underlying idea of individual dignity and freedom. Despite the baggage of colonialism, democratic capitalism succeeded remarkably in Asia, Africa and Latin America after World War II, and after the Cold War in particular. The democracy watchdog group Freedom House reports that as of 2017, 88 of 195 states were classified as “free,” compared with 65 of 165 in 1990. After the end of the Cold War, however, four structural challenges emerged to endanger the future of democratic capitalism: financial instability, technological disruption, widening social and economic inequality and structural weaknesses in democratic politics. If the West cannot overcome these challenges, they will, over time, spread to the rest of the world and undermine open polities, economies and societies. The 2008 financial crisis, one sign of a systemic sickness, occurred because of poorly regulated financial elites. The costs to governments and peoples were bailouts, lost jobs and more public debt. Governments had to scramble to save capitalism from itself as financial markets failed to self-correct.
If the United States wants to remain a global beacon of democratic capitalism, it must first confront its domestic challenges. The American social contract needs to be rebuilt through a revised New Deal. The social impact of technological change must be politically managed, rather than left to the market. Finance should return to its historical role as the servant of the real economy, rather than its master. And the Supreme Court must set a new direction on campaign finance (by overturning the Citizens United decision), gerrymandering and some of the crazier interpretations of the Second Amendment used to justify a breakdown in basic law and order. The United States also needs to re-embrace its responsibilities to the liberal international order it painstakingly created after World War II. This order was anchored in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the International Monetary Fund and other institutions and principles that have become the bedrock of free societies, free economies and free polities. The world now asks: Does the United States still embrace this order? Both democracy and capitalism are relatively recent developments in the long history of the West. They represent even more recent developments in the considerably longer history of the East. Both represent the enduring idea of freedom. Yet both rest on increasingly fragile political and economic institutions. History cautions us against any belief that democratic capitalism will somehow inevitably prevail. Unless, of course, we make it so by tending the garden while there is still time.
That lesson comes through in another recent book, The Death of Democracy,by Hunter College historian Benjamin Hett. A retelling of Hitler’s rise to power in Weimar Germany, The Death of Democracy does not mention any contemporary figures, but Trump and his party are all over its pages. The Weimar era that culminated in Hitler’s triumph was bitterly polarized. Nazis drew their heaviest support from rural areas, and they viewed Berlin — culturally libertine, swarming with immigrants — as alien to the “real” Germany. Hett presents Nazism as a backlash directed in large part against globalization, which many Germans saw as harmful to their economy, and immigration. “The German people have no interest,” wrote Hitler, in “a German financial group or a German shipyard establishing a so-called subsidiary shipyard in Shanghai to build ships for China with Chinese workers and foreign steel.” Germany’s porous eastern border had allowed an influx of Jewish immigrants, who had changed the tenor of Germany’s culture. Joseph Goebbels at one point proclaimed, “We want to build a wall, a protective wall.” They nurtured in their supporters what Hett calls a “cult of irrationality.” Amusingly, Hitler weathered a collusion scandal, in which he was charged with accepting covert campaign funding from his ally Benito Mussolini.
The important parallels here are not between Hitler and Trump. While Trump, like Hitler, is racist and authoritarian, his racism is not genocidal, his contempt for democracy is instinctive rather than ideological, and he crucially lacks any plan for massive territorial conquest. What makes the history pertinent, rather, are the eerie similarities in the behavior of the right-wing politicians who facilitated both men’s rise to power. If they had known from the outset that Hitler’s tenure would end in war-crimes trials and Soviet tanks rolling through rubble-strewn Berlin, Germany’s traditional rightists obviously never would have supported him. They did, however, consider him an ignorant demagogue, unqualified for high office and dangerously divisive. The country’s president, Paul von Hindenburg, who excluded the Nazis from the government for years because of his contempt for their leader, might be described as a #NeverHitler conservative.
Eventually, however, the fear and contempt with which the Establishment right viewed Hitler gave way to an appreciation for his populist appeal. Eventually, they decided to bring the Nazis into the government — National Socialists never came close to winning a majority — on the assumption that they could outmaneuver Hitler and curtail his worst instincts. From the perspective of what followed, this decision seems insane. But from the standpoint of 1933, in the midst of a long political stalemate among a deeply polarized electorate, empowering Hitler offered conservatives the only alternative to sharing power with the hated Social Democrats. The German right didn’t want “a lawless and barbaric dictatorship ruled over by somebody like Hitler,” concludes Hett. “They simply wanted the fastest and easiest solution to their own particular problems, and were deeply unwilling to compromise with their opponents.” Obviously, the fact that one erratic racist authoritarian demagogue proved impossible to contain does not prove that every erratic racist authoritarian demagogue is uncontainable. There are good reasons to believe Trump’s presidency will pass without catastrophic damage — chief among them, he may simply be too incompetent to make good on his anti-democratic impulses. It is notable, however, that a year and a half into Hitler’s tenure, his right-wing allies, including Hindenburg, still viewed their alliance with him mostly as a success.
The conclusion to lies-russia-rt-salisbury-
Putin on Salisbury and Trump on Puerto Rico are perfect examples of this new post-denialism, says Kahn-Harris. They are in the business of “asserting their power to shape reality according to their will”. Casting aside the niceties of facts and evidence, post-denialists are inching closer to saying what they really think: while an old-school Holocaust denier would say Auschwitz never happened, a post-denialist might say it did – and that it was good. On this reading, Putin is getting closer to saying: “Sure, we did Salisbury: what of it?” With Trump, it’s, “Puerto Rican lives matter to me less, because their skin is the wrong colour.” If this is what’s happening, it requires a different response. It means getting to the heart of the matter, tackling the underlying, if repugnant, belief rather than focusing on the facts, or gags, that lie on the surface. It means responding to Trump not with data, but with a moral argument for the equal worth of all human life – and to Putin with the moral case against chemical weapons. Perhaps that does not feel like the struggle for today. But it is fast becoming one of the urgent questions of our time: how do we defend the truth in a world of lies?
Trump keeps attacking the media
Trump’s assault on the First Amendment & Freedom of the Press continues on unabated, worthy of a two-bit dictator instead of President of the United States. Journalists in America now have concerns for their safety much like reporters operating in autocratic nations around the world. That Trump now has the unquestioned support of his party & his echo makes him all the more dangerous. The enemy of truths has now latched onto the GOP like a bloodsucking leech, sapping the life’s blood out of the party I once supported.
When the prez resigns or is removed from office as I’ve consistently predicted, with my current best guess has it coming sometime in 2019, it still won’t solve the underlying problem. Until Fox fake news & the rest of the echo get fully exposed/discredited for the lying enemies to the public they truly are, with the conservative base finally being enlightened as to how deceitful their preferred messaging sources really are, our nation will still be dragged down by this bombardment of alternative facts & conspiracies. These excerpts are the start to the article conservatives-war-
President Donald Trump’s “enemy of the people” rhetoric is putting the lives of American journalists at risk, Mother Jones’ Mark Follman reported Thursday, citing comments from law enforcement leaders and top security officials at two major news outlets. Trump’s years of vicious invective — echoed by his allies at Fox News — are bearing fruit. Reporters are facing a surge in bomb and death threats, organized harassment, online publication of their personal information (“doxxing”), and threatening mail sent to their home addresses, Follman’s sources warn. One security director at a major television news network told Follman that the threats spike when Trump rails against the network by name, with the harassers often using Trump’s “fake news” language, and that they are primarily aimed at journalists who report on the White House and the Trump-Russia probe — the very targets of the president’s ire. This heightened fear of violence against reporters will certainly continue throughout Trump’s tenure as president. There’s no indication that he will ever stop demonizing journalists — this is a deliberate strategy to discredit them for political gain that he has continued employing even after a man was arrested for threatening to murder reporters while using Trump’s anti-press rhetoric.
But there’s reason to fear that even after Trump is no longer president — especially if he wins re-election in 2020 — his party will continue down the same path. Naked, vicious hostility to the press could become a central plank of the Republican Party, turning elevated concerns about potential violence into the new normal. Trump’s ascension to the Republican presidential nominee was opposed by a broad cross-section of the party’s establishment. But since he became president, that opposition has almost entirely dissipated. Trump is now the unchallenged leader of his party, with overwhelming approval ratings among the party base. That support makes him a Republican political kingmaker, with the candidates he supports dominating the primary field this year. Meanwhile, candidates are betting that the best way to win their primaries is to mimic the president’s behavior and publicly pledge their loyalty to him. They are donning his caps and adopting his catchphrases. They parrot his authoritarian calls to imprison his political opponents, his racist demagoguery and his attacks on the press.
Echo knuckleheads are irritating to sensible Americans
Like the rest of the far-right echo, Rush Limbaugh (who I’ve often referred to as dimbulb) has grown increasingly radical through the years. His irresponsible downplaying of hurricane warnings to further his extreme agenda is likely costing lives, especially among his listeners who don’t properly heed the urgent pleas from local authorities & weather forecasters: rush-limbaugh-
Trump keeps cheerleading for his sycophant network, urging people to watch a particular show where minds could be further polluted with Fox propaganda pushing more nutty conspiracy theories: trump-praises-fox-
The most insane host of all
Insanity Hannity is now performing nightly circus acts featuring personal meltdowns on the air, spewing asinine lies & preposterous conspiracies as if his life depended on them. Well, maybe they do. His nonsensical gibberish is not just trying to defend Trump, but is maybe defending himself from potential crimes. Mr. insanity is lying through his teeth attacking everyone he sees as a threat, including Mueller, the DOJ, FBI & real media, maybe since he senses the legal threat to him personally. With Manafort & Cohen both singing to Mueller, it could put the most insane one in the Fox fake news lineup squarely in the crosshairs. Hannity had close personal relationships with both Manafort & Cohen prior to & after the 2016 election, where a likely topic of conversation could be strategizing over the Russian connections. Mr. insanity-himself also regularly yuks it up with the president-himself.
As the facts of the Russian probe come out, it’s very possible Hannity could get caught up on the obstruction side if not worse. A part of me is saying it could be just as important for Hannity to get criminally indicted & taken off the air, as it is for Trump to be removed from the White House. That could stop the insane one’s nightly rants of absurd lies & conspiracies which millions of his viewers apparently believe, so that doting tribe recruited into Trump’s cult can have their minds freed from hearing that regular bombardment of verbal rubbish, & they can return to the community of sane Americans where we can all reunite around truths in pursuing the common good. America would then become a much better place.
Fox suppresses & distorts real news
The Manafort plea deal is a significant development in the Mueller probe & Russia scandal, but those relying on Fox fake news for all their news are being kept in the dark about it. As the president’s protectors, his state-run TV is doing everything it can to ignore this major story, or try to portray it with their unique slant of mind-boggling quackery. They also get sidetracked with breathless revelations like Lisa Page admitting no collusion could yet be proven BEFORE the Mueller investigation. Well duh, that’s exactly why the investigation was needed, to find out. And keep in mind as you read this article about the Fox sleight of hand on the Manafort headline posted from www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?
This development now gives Mueller a cooperating witness who was in the room at Trump Tower when Don Jr. and others met with Russian operatives seeking dirt on Hillary Clinton. That’s the core of the “witch hunt” charges of collusion that have been driving Trump’s batty for two years. Additionally, Manafort’s high position with the Trump campaign makes it likely that he has other incriminating information about Trump and company related to Russia, Wikileaks, and efforts to obstruct justice. It’s hard to overstate the trouble this news poses for Trump. However, it is easy to understate it. And that’s exactly what State TV (aka Fox News) has been doing since the news broke. While Fox News did air a twenty-six second “alert” prior to the plea being announced in court, they have taken great pains to ignore it ever since. That alert had no details about the agreement and no notice of Manafort’s cooperation with Mueller. At the noon hour Shepard Smith took over. It took him an hour and twenty minutes to say anything about the Manafort case. And that segment was the last he said about it for at least the next hour and a half. It’s no wonder that Fox News is determined to suppress this news. It puts Trump in a the awkward position of defending himself against another former associate who is turning state’s evidence. In this case, Trump had previously praised Manafort for his loyalty and bravery under pressure. Well, so much for not breaking. If history is any indicator, Trump will shortly tweet about what a weasel Manafort is for making up these lies to cut a deal for himself. Then Trump will Insist that he hardly knew Manafort and he had little to do with Trump or his campaign. And that’s when Fox News will resume reporting on this subject. They will virtually ignore the substance of the legal controversy and focus on Trump’s rejection of the weak-kneed former campaign boss. The script just writes itself.
Judge Kavanaugh now on the hot seat
There’s a lot to believe from Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault accusations. A few years ago she underwent psychological therapy related to the assault which her counselor can vouch for, so at that time Ford’s psychological treatment would have had zero to do with any political agenda. The victim also recently passed a lie detector. Sexual assault/attempted rape, if proven, is not the stuff made of Supreme Court Justices. Sen. Feinstein sat on this info a couple months to honor the accuser’s wishes to remain anonymous, but once the rumors started to leak, Ford agreed (reluctantly) to go public with her story. Judge Kavanaugh is even denying he was ever at that high school party in question (perhaps being coached in a Monday meeting with Trump?), so there are clear delineations in the he said/she said claims that need to be hashed out. Many in the GOP supporting Kavanaugh are casting doubt on the whole story or dismissing it as high school high jinks from 36 years ago, but a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court that’s being evaluating here requires upholding to the highest standards.
They’re both scheduled to publicly testify under oath on Monday in front of the Senate Judiciary (as of now Dr. Ford still hasn’t responded to the Senate’s request to testify). If she comes across as believable, especially with midterms coming, I think the Judge Kavanaugh confirmation would be toast. Just the optics of male senators grilling a woman who claims she was sexually assaulted is a really bad look. That reality will dawn on some senators, who may prefer postponing Monday’s hearings & defer this case to the FBI. I believe there should certainly be a better choice out there of a pro-life judge to nominate, someone who’s much more qualified than Kavanaugh for the highest court, so I do think it’s quite likely this nomination will go down in flames. Let’s just make sure they take the time to fully explore these sexual assault allegations, even perhaps waiting till after the midterms to gather all the facts, then either vote on Kavanaugh or select another judge. For now it’s just hard to see Kavanaugh having the needed votes. He may get zero Dem votes & the lady GOP senators from Maine & Alaska would likely not vote for him at this point, plus there may be others. Jeff Flake can be counted on to stand up for principle, as likely would Bob Corker also.
Many of us recall how the Clarence Thomas & Anita Hill hearings blew up in the public consciousness back in 1991, so we may be in for a similar captivating spectacle: supreme-court-
Here is how Ford’s story unfolded as seen in excerpts from california-professor-
Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed. Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it. Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County. While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.” Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens. In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.
She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. In the letter, which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, the name she uses professionally. Though Ford had contacted The Post, she declined to speak on the record for weeks as she grappled with concerns about what going public would mean for her and her family — and what she said was her duty as a citizen to tell the story. She engaged Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer known for her work on sexual harassment cases. On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to The Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.
By late August, Ford had decided not to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably would not affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?” she said. Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, the Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues. Feinstein soon released a statement: “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” she wrote. “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.” 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. As pressure grew, the New York Times reported that the incident involved “possible sexual misconduct.” By then, Ford had begun to fear she would be exposed. People were clearly learning her identity: A BuzzFeed reporter visited her at her home and tried to speak to her as she was leaving a classroom where she teaches graduate students. Another reporter called her colleagues to ask about her.
On Friday, the New Yorker reported the letter’s contents but did not reveal Ford’s identity. Soon after, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) released a letter from 65 women who say they knew Kavanaugh when he attended high school from 1979 to 1983 at Georgetown Prep, an all-boys school in North Bethesda. “Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity,” the women wrote. “In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.” As the story snowballed, Ford said, she heard people repeating inaccuracies about her and, with the visits from reporters, felt her privacy being chipped away. Her calculation changed. “These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid,” she said, explaining her decision to come forward. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation.” Katz said she believes Feinstein honored Ford’s request to keep her allegation confidential, but “regrettably others did not.” “Victims must have the right to decide whether to come forward, especially in a political environment that is as ruthless as this one,” Katz said. “She will now face vicious attacks by those who support this nominee.”
It may be wise to give the FBI time to fully investigate these disturbing claims. That could provide helpful context to these congressional testimonies. Max Boot points out the GOP can no longer rush through Kavanaugh’s confirmation in republicans-cant-try-to-
The Kavanaugh nomination will now be assessed by people all of whom voted for the presidential candidate who confessed to grabbing women. On present indications, the allegations against Kavanaugh will not to be assessed in any meaningful sense at all. But “assessed” is the wrong word. They are not going to be assessed in any meaningful sense of that word. The Senate Judiciary Committee has already released a statement dismissing the allegations as unworthy of further attention, and in fact, as an abuse of the hearing process. The candidate has been vetted, there is nothing more to learn or say. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” So said Mitch McConnell about the Merrick Garland nomination nine months before the 2016 elections. It’s now less than eight weeks to elections that may remake the Senate. What’s the case that this group of men should be the one to speak for the American people about this nomination? It will be not be easy to ascertain what happened all those years ago. It will not be much easier to judge the relevance of those events, whatever they were, to a confirmation vote 36 years later. But we can judge the judges—and they are the wrong men in the wrong job at the wrong time. This vote should be delayed until more facts are in, and until a broader public has made its voice heard.
I often turn to Rubin. Check out this perspective in her op-ed from kavanaughs-accuser-steps-
Certain facts add to her credibility. First, “Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’ ” Second, in August she took a polygraph test (not admissible in a legal proceeding, but certainly effective in the court of public opinion) that concluded “Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.” Finally, the individual allegedly with Kavanaugh at the time, Mark Judge, who tried to vouch for him has actually undermined his defense. Judge has written about his alcohol problem.
To Republicans and the judge himself who may think this is terribly unfair, I have two responses. First, the entire confirmation process has been rushed, incomplete and hampered by the partisan, limited release of relevant documents. Even before we got to this point, the argument for waiting until all documents could be disclosed and reviewed was compelling. Second, it may well be unfair to hear a last-minute allegation, but it would be much more unfair to allow someone who has lied to the American people about an alleged sexual assault to reach the highest court. The analogies to Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court are inapt. While his alleged conduct was far more recent, it involved no physical conduct. Boorishness and sexual harassment can be reprehensible but not illegal; sexual assault is a crime.
Posted here is the opening to brett-kavanaugh-christine-
President Trump’s bid to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was thrown into uncertainty on Sunday as a woman came forward with explosive allegations that Mr. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers more than three decades ago. The woman, Christine Blasey Ford, 51, a research psychologist at Palo Alto University in Northern California, said in an interview with The Washington Post that during a high school party in the early 1980s, a drunken Mr. Kavanaugh pinned her on a bed, groped her and covered her mouth to keep her from screaming. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” the newspaper quoted her as saying. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.” Judge Kavanaugh has denied the accusations, and in a terse statement on Sunday, the White House said it stood by those denials. It signaled that it had no intention of pulling the nomination. But Ms. Ford’s decision to put her name behind accusations that began to circulate late last week — a choice made after weeks of reluctance — appeared to open a door to a delay in a Senate committee vote on the nomination scheduled for Thursday. The disclosure also injected a volatile #MeToo element into the confirmation debate, one that is playing out in the overwhelmingly male Republican-led Senate during a midterm election that has energized Democratic women. Ms. Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, told CNN on Monday that Ms. Ford was willing to testify before Congress.
Tons of news stories
Here are many accounts of the assault allegations & the potential ramifications from multiple news sources. For SEO purposes we limit the number of outbound links, so these are not live, but it’s easy enough to copy & paste into your search engine any articles you want to find. Even just perusing the titles in the drop down below is informative: