Kavanaugh/Ford Opinion Threads -- Monday Sept 24th 2018
- Thread starter Windparadox
- Start date
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 103,380
- 54,252
- 2,615
Again, the accusations were about something that happened at a federal agency, involving federal employees.
If you want to investigate, fine, find the appropriate authority, and use it to impeach Kavenaugh when the investigation is completed if you can prove any of it.
Until then, this is just a stalling tactic and the worst form of politics.
Guess you missed the one where he participated in a gang rape??
What's next?? Aliens and bigfoot???
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 103,380
- 54,252
- 2,615
What part of "we know this is a bullshit delaying tactic" do you not understand?
The man has been on the DC Circuit for a decade, yet all of a sudden this all comes out of the woodwork.
She has nothing to fear as long as she doesn't wear sunglasses, so that rules out the need for security. It doesn't take $150k to buy a round trip ticket to Washington.
Frankly, I don't think she'll ever show. Thus the second and third accusations were floated.
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,265
- 15,812
- 2,210
I believe the men take an oath. He said it himself.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,201
- 6,543
- 335
Regardless of out come her career is enhanced ( see Anita hill ). She might get book deals. Fees for public speaking engagements ( which antifa will never protest ). Expert consultation payments.
The list goes on.
And of course she may get the satisfaction of stopping a trump appointment which alone could be huge motive
Like the haters getting riled up are going to accept any results that don't prove guilt. Face reality, they will call Kavenaugh a rapist the rest of their lives, even though he's not even been advised of rape. The same ones now yelling we can't hold the vote without a "short" investigation will yell that we can't have the vote because the investigation didn't turn up anything.
Only if she has the courage to show up.
Feinstein is trying to call it off now, so I doubt she ever shows.
BookShaka
Gold Member
Dumbest comment of the century.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,079
- 53,601
- 2,290
And 10 things that show this is another scam attack against a good man...
It used to be that journalists actually had to confirm stories before they went to print....they did not do this here, they rushed this story out to destroy Kavanaugh......
10 Serious Problems With New Accusations Against Kavanaugh
1. The New Yorker could not find a single witness who could put Kavanaugh at the alleged party.
Buried more than 1,000 words into the report, Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer wrote:
The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.
2. The New York Times could not find a single person who could corroborate Ramirez's claims.
The New York Times likewise could not find a single witness to backup her allegations:
The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.
3. The man accused of egging on Kavanaugh denied Ramirez's allegations and vouched for Kavanaugh's character.
Buried more than 1,400 words into The New Yorker story, Farrow and Mayer provide a quote from one of the men named by Ramirez:
One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. "I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter," he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, "I have no idea." The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, "I have zero recollection."
4. A third person that Ramirez claimed was at the party says she was not there for the alleged incident.
The classmate, who was not named, said that "she was not present at the incident."
5. Ramirez contacted her former classmates, asking about the incident, and admitted she was not sure that Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself.
The Times' report states:
Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
6. A woman who claims she was "best friends" with Ramirez says Ramirez never mentioned the story and initially said her friend's accusations against Kavanaugh might be "politically motivated."
Buried nearly 1,700 words into the New Yorker piece, the report states:
The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.
7. Ramirez, just like Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat and is dedicated to leftist causes.
----
8. Ramirez wasn't even sure her memory was correct — until she spent six days going over it with her Democrat lawyer.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,079
- 53,601
- 2,290
From Charles Cooke....
The New Yorker’s Brett Kavanaugh Story Should Never Have Been Published | National Review
Judge Kavanaugh labels The New Yorker’s report a “smear, plain and simple.” He should be applauded for his restraint. I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of “journalism” in a major outlet.
The piece starts out not with a summary of the story, but with the news that Democrats in Washington are taking it seriously — a weaselly attempt to pass the buck if I ever saw one (“People are saying!”). After that throat clearing, it is acknowledged that the person making the accusation around which the piece revolves had not mentioned it until Kavanaugh was nominated, “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” and agreed to make the charge on the record only after she had spent “six days [] carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”
There are no corroborating witnesses.
None.
Of the “dozens” of classmates The New Yorkercontacted, all either failed “to respond to interview requests . . . declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.”
Indeed, we learn late in the piece that the authors could not establish that Kavanaugh was even there.
“The New Yorker,” the tenth paragraph begins, “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” The only “evidence” provided comes from a “classmate” who was not at the party, but is certain he heard about the incident, and from “another classmate” who thinks he heard about an incident that could vaguely resemble the one alleged, but doesn’t know to whom it was done, or by whom. Or, as we would traditionally put it: The only proof provided is rumor.
--------
As the New York Times reports:
The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
The New Yorker’s Brett Kavanaugh Story Should Never Have Been Published | National Review
Judge Kavanaugh labels The New Yorker’s report a “smear, plain and simple.” He should be applauded for his restraint. I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of “journalism” in a major outlet.
The piece starts out not with a summary of the story, but with the news that Democrats in Washington are taking it seriously — a weaselly attempt to pass the buck if I ever saw one (“People are saying!”). After that throat clearing, it is acknowledged that the person making the accusation around which the piece revolves had not mentioned it until Kavanaugh was nominated, “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” and agreed to make the charge on the record only after she had spent “six days [] carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”
There are no corroborating witnesses.
None.
Of the “dozens” of classmates The New Yorkercontacted, all either failed “to respond to interview requests . . . declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.”
Indeed, we learn late in the piece that the authors could not establish that Kavanaugh was even there.
“The New Yorker,” the tenth paragraph begins, “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” The only “evidence” provided comes from a “classmate” who was not at the party, but is certain he heard about the incident, and from “another classmate” who thinks he heard about an incident that could vaguely resemble the one alleged, but doesn’t know to whom it was done, or by whom. Or, as we would traditionally put it: The only proof provided is rumor.
--------
As the New York Times reports:
The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
Pop23
Gold Member
I’ve read extensively on it. Every urban legend ever told about high school and college parties are being used, and none verified by eye witnesses.
I know all I need to know.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 161,720
- 88,265
- 2,645
It won't end as long as the democrat Party can bring false accusation after false accusation with no consequences and have the FakeNews Establishment continue to publish as if they were true and accurate
Pop23
Gold Member
Quote where I said that idiot
Pop23
Gold Member
Serious investigation requires serious allegations backed up by eye witness verification. Wake me up when you get that.
Pop23
Gold Member
You’ll need to ask Feinstein that, she withheld the information too long.
Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 21,201
- 6,543
- 335
How is Feinstein trying to call it off and why?
Jesus. *shaking head*
Comey read out all of the "evidence" clearly under oath.
He simply refused to recommend bringing charges.
BookShaka
Gold Member
But that’s the thing! These crimes aren’t provable or unprovable, not without physical evidence—which just adds to the suspicion the accusations are bullshit.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Gabbard claims ‘coordinated effort’ by intelligence community to advance narrative to impeach Trump- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 18
-
-
