Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Cow Poke]

More likely, her attorney and/or Dem leadership wants the circus - assuming she's telling what she thinks is the truth. I expect she's having second thoughts.

Again, I don't think they ever imagined it would get this far - I think they figured the Republicans would just cave, and they wouldn't even have had to make her name public.

[One Bad Pig]

Again, I don't think they ever imagined it would get this far - I think they figured the Republicans would just cave, and they wouldn't even have had to make her name public.

I don't think they were that delusional. They had to know that, once the existence of the allegation was made known, journalists of all stripes would work non-stop to figure out who it was.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think they were that delusional. They had to know that, once the existence of the allegation was made known, journalists of all stripes would work non-stop to figure out who it was.

OK, I'll buy that - but I don't think they ever dreamed it would come down to her actually having to back up her claims.

[carpedm9587]

I've read part of this thread - but not all of it. FWIW, here's what I think.

I don't know. If the event happened as described, denying it and vilifying the woman is disgraceful. If the event did not happen as described, affirming it and slandering an innocent man is disgraceful.

I have no desire to be disgraceful - and I have no desire to harm anyone that is innocent. So I have no choice but to say "I don't know."

There is no room in this, for me, for partisanship. I'm not going to line up behind one or the other claimant because they are "on my side." I am not going to villify anyone because they are "not on my side." This is about real, potentially hurtful issues.

The best I can do is, "I don't know."

[Cow Poke]

I've read part of this thread - but not all of it. FWIW, here's what I think.

I don't know. If the event happened as described, denying it and vilifying the woman is disgraceful. If the event did not happen as described, affirming it and slandering an innocent man is disgraceful.

I have no desire to be disgraceful - and I have no desire to harm anyone that is innocent. So I have no choice but to say "I don't know."

There is no room in this, for me, for partisanship. I'm not going to line up behind one or the other claimant because they are "on my side." I am not going to villify anyone because they are "not on my side." This is about real, potentially hurtful issues.

The best I can do is, "I don't know."

Laying all that aside for a minute - there was a process. An orderly process in which both Republicans and Democrats participated.

DiFi had the information since JULY, and she was the ranking minority member, but it never came up a single time during the orderly process.

It's not like they suddenly discovered a problem AFTER the process.

To me, that's a huge problem.

[One Bad Pig]

I've read part of this thread - but not all of it. FWIW, here's what I think.

I don't know. If the event happened as described, denying it and vilifying the woman is disgraceful. If the event did not happen as described, affirming it and slandering an innocent man is disgraceful.

Sexual abuse is a terrible thing, with long-lasting consequences; IF someone's guilty of perpetrating it, they absolutely should be punished. The issue here, from as objective a stance as I can take, is that there's precious little evidence (and varying evidence at that) the event actually happened as described, and alleged eyewitnesses, including a good friend of the woman, deny having seen anything of the sort.

[Mountain Man]

I suspect its not her who wants the circus.

In this case, it's a bit like pulling the pin on a grenade and then complaining that it's going to blow up in your face because nobody will take it off your hands.

[Mountain Man]

I've read part of this thread - but not all of it. FWIW, here's what I think.

I don't know. If the event happened as described, denying it and vilifying the woman is disgraceful. If the event did not happen as described, affirming it and slandering an innocent man is disgraceful.

I have no desire to be disgraceful - and I have no desire to harm anyone that is innocent. So I have no choice but to say "I don't know."

There is no room in this, for me, for partisanship. I'm not going to line up behind one or the other claimant because they are "on my side." I am not going to villify anyone because they are "not on my side." This is about real, potentially hurtful issues.

The best I can do is, "I don't know."

The fact that every single witness named by both accusers has emphatically denied the allegations should lead you to a reasonable conclusion.

[Terraceth]

She caused the circus, now she wants to avoid it?

I think that, assuming she believes her own accusation, she's in a tough position. Obviously, if you think (correctly or incorrectly) that someone sexually assaulted you and is about to go onto the Supreme Court, you'd want to try to have people be aware of that fact. However, doing so would inherently draw a ton of attention, and likely criticism, on yourself. If that's the case, there weren't really any good options for her. She even sent the letter well before the hearings, and if it was handled then there would have likely been less of this "circus", but Feinstein decided to sit on it for months before doing anything with it.

[RumTumTugger]

I think that, assuming she believes her own accusation, she's in a tough position. Obviously, if you think (correctly or incorrectly) that someone sexually assaulted you and is about to go onto the Supreme Court, you'd want to try to have people be aware of that fact. However, doing so would inherently draw a ton of attention, and likely criticism, on yourself. If that's the case, there weren't really any good options for her. She even sent the letter well before the hearings, and if it was handled then there would have likely been less of this "circus", but Feinstein decided to sit on it for months before doing anything with it.

Bingo. this was done on purpose with no regard to Dr. Ford on Diane Feinstien's part.

[Mountain Man]

Source: Senate Judiciary Committee Schedules Friday Vote on Kavanaugh

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ote-kavanaugh/

© Copyright Original Source

Mitch McConnell says that he's confident Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

[Mountain Man]

Kavanaugh's second accuser is refusing to cooperate with the Senate in any way. No written statement, no testimony, nothing.

Source: GOP lawmaker: Second Kavanaugh accuser refusing to talk to Congress

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...lk-to-congress

© Copyright Original Source

I like their bluff about wanting to cooperate with the FBI when they already know full well this is outside of the FBI's jurisdiction. And we can't forget the fact that like Ford's accusations, every single witness named by Ramirez has refuted her claims.

[Alsharad]

You know, I almost agreed with an FBI investigation, but then I remembered what Joe Biden said about FBI investigations regarding Supreme Court nominees...

"The reason why I have worked so hard to keep FBI reports totally secret is because they have little or no probative weight, because they are hearsay," Biden said. "The FBI does their interviews by walking up to person A and saying will you speak to us, and the guarantee is anonymity. That is what the FBI tells the person, and the FBI speaks to the person. Now, for us to summarily go back and say, as a matter of policy, that we are going to break the commitment the Federal Government makes to an individual, in order to get that individual to cooperate in an investigation, is disastrous."

"And the last thing I will point out, the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn't understand anything," Biden later said. "FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period, period. So, Judge, there is no reason why you should know this. The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report, you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say he said, she said, and they said, period. So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not reach conclusions. They do not make, as my friend points out more accurately, they do not make recommendations."

Full Article Here

Sorry, I don't know how to do the cool "Source" block...

[Mountain Man]

OK, this just keeps getting funnier... now there are rumors that Avenatti was pranked by 4chan, and that's why he so suddenly locked his Twitter account.

[Tassman]

As for this...


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...

It's all evidence nevertheless and easily resolved one way or the other by an FBI investigation, which is studiously being avoided by the Senate Committee attempting to rush the proceedings through with a 'he said/she said' hearing. Why?

The FBI is responsible for doing background checks on nominees for high office and all these women (now there are three) say they have information they would like to provide to the FBI for that purpose as it relates to Brett Kavanaugh. This so the FBI can assess what these women have to say...and that is something no lawyer would ever advise a client to do if there was any worry at all that the client`s story was a lie.

As well there are other matters requiring attention from the FBI. Kavanaugh needs to be asked about the claims on his yearbook page. Lots of stuff one wouldn't expect a naive virgin "all through high school (as he claimed on Fox), to have ANY knowledge about, e.g. Kavanaugh's claim of a "Devil's Triangle" in his yearbook blurb. According to the Urban Dictionary, that's a term for a 2-guy, 1-girl, 3-way sex encounter. The odious sexist Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's good friend at the time needs to be questioned by the FBI, given that he was supposedly in the room at the time...there are many such questions which the Senate Committee is trying to brush under the carpet.