Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Mountain Man]

Agreed. The standard of "innocent until proven guilty" is a sacred pillar of our justice system for a reason.

Also, it is the accuser's burden to provide the evidence. They don't get the luxury of making a bald accusation with the expectation that law enforcement will immediately start looking for evidence. There needs to be probable cause before a case is opened, and in both of these cases, there is zero.

[One Bad Pig]

This is buried a dozen paragraphs below the headline:


So the pattern continues: a woman has vivid memories of being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh, yet the people named as witnesses have no memory of it.

This is in the New Yorker because the NYT refused to run it - that's how credible it is.

[Sparko]

Pix - why don't you try empathy for just one time? What would you do if someone pushed themselves on you and you knew that person was powerful, well liked, had an impeccable reputation, and you did not have one shred of evidence it actually happened? Are you going to face most people doubting you, wondering why you would lie like that about such a good person? And for what? You can't prove ANYTHING about it. And the few people you thought could at least confirm the two of you were in the same place at the same time are saying they don't recall anything about it.

Pixie, Jim (oxmix) has said (post 499) that he doesn't think these accusations should even be brought up because it is something that happened back in high school and none of us should be responsible for the dumb stuff we did when we were in high school. so you are arguing against something oxmix hasn't even proposed.

[lilpixieofterror]

Pixie, Jim (oxmix) has said (post 499) that he doesn't think these accusations should even be brought up because it is something that happened back in high school and none of us should be responsible for the dumb stuff we did when we were in high school. so you are arguing against something oxmix hasn't even proposed.

Than why did he say this?

Pix - why don't you try empathy for just one time? What would you do if someone pushed themselves on you and you knew that person was powerful, well liked, had an impeccable reputation, and you did not have one shred of evidence it actually happened? Are you going to face most people doubting you, wondering why you would lie like that about such a good person? And for what? You can't prove ANYTHING about it. And the few people you thought could at least confirm the two of you were in the same place at the same time are saying they don't recall anything about it.

[Terraceth]

To me, again, it really isn't about the truth or falsity. It's the fact it was high school and early college. Unless it was a prosecutable, criminal offense like rape, I really don't think what somebody did in high school in this arena can hold a candle to what their lifetime of character shows they became.

If Kavanaugh had admitted it was true, I might agree with this. But he emphatically denied it took place. So the question of whether it can be ignored due to happening in high school is essentially moot, and the all-important question is whether it happened or not. If it did happen, then we're faced with the not-at-all-in-the-past fact of him lying about it. If it didn't happen, then the question of how harshly he should be judged for it is nothing more than a hypothetical because it didn't actually happen.

[seer]

Great interview with Kavanaugh and his wife on Fox now....

[Mountain Man]

Pixie, Jim (oxmix) has said (post 499) that he doesn't think these accusations should even be brought up because it is something that happened back in high school and none of us should be responsible for the dumb stuff we did when we were in high school. so you are arguing against something oxmix hasn't even proposed.

Sorry, but that just looks like ox saying it doesn't matter in order to dance around the issue that the accusers are almost certainly lying.

[Mountain Man]

Now Avenatti is claiming that Kavanaugh's yearbook contains coded messages that allude to sexual assault.

You can't make this up.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hool-yearbook/

[Tassman]

Now Avenatti is claiming that Kavanaugh's yearbook contains coded messages that allude to sexual assault.

You can't make this up.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hool-yearbook/

Well Breitbart certainly knows how to spin it and miss the more salient points. Has your favourite propaganda organ commented on Kavanaugh's Yale room mate James Roche's opinion? Namely, that he believes the second claimant's story about Kavanaugh exposing himself because: "Roche described Kavanaugh as a "normally reserved" person, but a "notably heavy drinker, even by the standards at the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk." "Roche, who lived in a two-bedroom unit with Kavanaugh during their freshman year, described Ramirez as "being exceptionally honest, with a trusting manner," and said he believed Kavanaugh may have been "capable" of behaving in the alleged manner".

https://www.businessinsider.com/bret...egation-2018-9

There seems to be a pattern developing here, what with Dr Ford and now Ramirez. Is this the sort of man you really want on the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of women? A sexual aggressor like Trump, oh wait... Of course you do.

[NorrinRadd]

If Kavanaugh had admitted it was true, I might agree with this. But he emphatically denied it took place. So the question of whether it can be ignored due to happening in high school is essentially moot, and the all-important question is whether it happened or not. If it did happen, then we're faced with the not-at-all-in-the-past fact of him lying about it. If it didn't happen, then the question of how harshly he should be judged for it is nothing more than a hypothetical because it didn't actually happen.

So... Are you suggesting he should have just admitted to it, or said something like, "It's possible I was so drunk that I don't remember it, but if it did happen, I'm truly sorry," even if he knows he did NOT do it, just to get past it?

[Roy]

Again for the hundredth time, when you ignore far worse conduct from your side ...

Which side is that? Liberals? Feminists? Democrats? Christians? Yankees? Conservatives? Anti-Trumpers? Protestants? Marylanders?

Jim is an individual. Not a side.

[Roy]

You really think the Democrats won't use every dirty trick in the book to smear a conservative nominee, regardless of their gender?

There were no similar accusations against Gorsuch, so no.

[Mountain Man]

There seems to be a pattern developing here, what with Dr Ford and now Ramirez.

Yes, and that pattern is that both women have made sketchy accusations that have been flatly denied by the people that they themselves named as eyewitnesses.

[Mountain Man]

As for this...

Has your favourite propaganda organ commented on Kavanaugh's Yale room mate James Roche's opinion? Namely, that he believes the second claimant's story about Kavanaugh exposing himself because: "Roche described Kavanaugh as a "normally reserved" person, but a "notably heavy drinker, even by the standards at the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk." "Roche, who lived in a two-bedroom unit with Kavanaugh during their freshman year, described Ramirez as "being exceptionally honest, with a trusting manner," and said he believed Kavanaugh may have been "capable" of behaving in the alleged manner".

https://www.businessinsider.com/bret...egation-2018-9

Sketchy sketchy sketchy...

Did you even read the story? Or did you just read the misleading bullet points at the top? First, he says he didn't witness the incident:

"Roche claims that although he did not witness the alleged incident, he was inclined to agree with Ramirez based on his experience around Kavanaugh."

And what experience do you suppose that is when Roche admits that he "did not interact with Kavanaugh 'beyond the first few days of freshman year'"? Yet we're supposed to believe that he has some deep insight into Kavanaugh's character despite openly conceding that he barely knew the guy.

Of course the article buries these details almost a dozen paragraphs below the headline. Like I said, sketchy sketchy sketchy...

[Mountain Man]

Source: Ms. Blasey-Ford Attorney Casts Doubt on Appearance�

As of last weekend sketchy DC political lawyer Michael Bromwich, joined the legal team to represent the political interests of sketchy Kavanaugh accuser Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford.

Mr. Bromwich sends a letter tonighthttps://theconservativetreehouse.com...on-appearance/

© Copyright Original Source

I really think Diane Feinstein thought the anonymous letter would be a kill-shot in and of itself, but when that didn't work, they had to raise the stakes with the accuser identifying herself, and when that didn't work, they had to raise the stakes again by having the accuser make a show of wanting to testify under oath, but it seems that this obvious patsy of the Democrat party is unwilling to "take one for the team" by committing perjury.

In other words, their bluff has been called. I wonder what their next play will be?