Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[One Bad Pig]

It is my understanding that the accuser refused to be publicly identified until recently.

It is my understanding that DiFi leaked the existence of the letter prior to the accuser giving permission to be publicly identified (and that her identification was discovered prior to that permission as well).

I am also not a slave to "process," and it strikes me that Republicans appear to be a slave to process on;y when it is convenient. The president nominates - the senate confirms. In 2016, the argument for not even considering the nominee of Obama was "an election was coming and the people's voice should be heard." So the normal process of hearings and a vote was never even permitted. Now we have a vote that is weeks away, for the confirming body, but the argument "the people's voice should be heard" is nowhere to be heard. Yet there is no doubt that a judge cannot be places on SCOTUS without BOTH the nomination of the executive and the confirmation of the Senate.

I don't know the truth of what happened with Kavanaugh. I DO know the "process" argument holds little water with me. That argument was undermined when the Republicans changed the process to suit them in 2016, and then ignored that change (again to suit them) in 2018. Had they taken the same position both times, I would have said, "so be it - that's the process." The fact that they didn't suggests process is secondary to political expediency - for both parties.

The target you're aiming for is over here, not over there. The process was already started in this case, and was nearly complete; in fact the confirmation vote is not "weeks away" per "the process" - it was already supposed to happen by now. I suspect the process argument holds little water with you because if you actually dealt with it, you'd have no argument left. I'm cynical that way.

[RumTumTugger]

Gee... when it happened, who was there, how she got to the house, how she got home... you know, like... details.

Starlight you asked CP what further information Dr. Ford needed to give? Here's his answer. So tell me how you can investigate something when no details are given.

[Cerebrum123]

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...

Something like this works.

[cite = Article] Paragraph here. [/ cite ]

Without spaces ends up as.

Source: Article

Paragraph here.

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

1234.jpg

[Mountain Man]

At this point I consider both women's claims pretty thoroughly corroborated.

What convinced you? Is it the spotty memories of the accusers who can't remember key details? Is it the fact that every single witness named by both accusers has emphatically denied the accusations? Maybe it's the fact that both accusers found the experience so personally traumatizing that they didn't breath a word about it, not even to their closest friends, for over 30-years and miraculously acquired crystal clear recall of Kavanaugh's name and face only when he was about to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

You're right, that does sound "pretty thoroughly corroborated".

[carpedm9587]

It is my understanding that DiFi leaked the existence of the letter prior to the accuser giving permission to be publicly identified (and that her identification was discovered prior to that permission as well).

OK - I'm not finding anything to confirm that DiFi leaked the letter. It was my understanding the letter was sent to the FBI. Do you have sources to confirm this leak?

The target you're aiming for is over here, not over there. The process was already started in this case, and was nearly complete; in fact the confirmation vote is not "weeks away" per "the process" - it was already supposed to happen by now. I suspect the process argument holds little water with you because if you actually dealt with it, you'd have no argument left. I'm cynical that way.

OBP - Kavanaugh was nominated on July 9th, 2018. That was almost 4 months ahead of the Senate election. That was the start of the process. Merrick Garland was nominated in March 16, 2016. That was almost 8 months ahead of the presidential election. Those were the dates of the beginning of the "process." The Garland process ended with that nomination. It never even got a hearing - and the argument was "election coming - need to hear the will of the people." The Kavanaugh process began on that day as well, and that "will of the people" argument magically disappeared.

As noted - any claims to the importance of process have been undermined, IMO, by that hypocritical position. Process appears to only be important so long as it meets the political needs of the party emphasizing it. If it doesn't, out the window it goes.

[JimL]

They insist that the incident be investigated. Who better than an experienced prosecutor to investigate the allegations?

You guys are too funny. Simply questioning the the accuser and the accused is not a full investigation. There are now 4 corrobarating witnesses who will be submitting letters testifying on behalf of Dr. Ford and who knows how many more are out there since the allegations were not investigated. You might want to ask yourselves this question. Why did Dr. Ford bring this up to her friends, her therapist, and her husband, accusing Kavanaugh by name, years before this, years before his being nominated as a SC Justice? It's sort of like Trumps "Obama was born in Kenya" scam, like Dr. Ford knew the future and planned it all out years ahead of time. Now we all know that MM will buy anything, but are you really all that naive?

[seer]

There are now 4 corrobarating witnesses who will be submitting letters testifying on behalf of Dr. Ford and who knows how many more are out there since the allegations were not investigated.

Link please.

[RumTumTugger]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31451[/ATTACH]

This is where we are headed if this travesty of Justice is allowed to continue.

[Mountain Man]

Among the ones I find most interesting are Kavanaugh's roommate saying that...

...he wasn't at the party where the incident supposedly happened and therefore can not confirm Ramirez's accusations, and that he didn't actually know Kavanaugh personally and only briefly interacted with him for the first few days of his freshman year.

Yes, I found that interesting as well.

[RumTumTugger]

There are now 4 corrobarating witnesses who will be submitting letters testifying on behalf of Dr. Ford and who knows how many more are out there since the allegations were not investigated.

looks like JimL is not doing his homework again since he did source this an assertion. no source all we can assume is that you are an idiot who is talking through his hat and are the naive one buying anything

[JimL]

OK - I'm not finding anything to confirm that DiFi leaked the letter. It was my understanding the letter was sent to the FBI. Do you have sources to confirm this leak?



OBP - Kavanaugh was nominated on July 9th, 2018. That was almost 4 months ahead of the Senate election. That was the start of the process. Merrick Garland was nominated in March 16, 2016. That was almost 8 months ahead of the presidential election. Those were the dates of the beginning of the "process." The Garland process ended with that nomination. It never even got a hearing - and the argument was "election coming - need to hear the will of the people." The Kavanaugh process began on that day as well, and that "will of the people" argument magically disappeared.

As noted - any claims to the importance of process have been undermined, IMO, by that hypocritical position. Process appears to only be important so long as it meets the political needs of the party emphasizing it. If it doesn't, out the window it goes.

The letter doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, the word could have gotten out by anyone, by her friends who may have known about the situation and the media tracked her down. From what I've heard the letter came out, and Dr. Ford decided to testify to Congress only after she and her family started to be harrassed and threatened by the nut cases on the right.

[lilpixieofterror]

You guys are too funny. Simply questioning the the accuser and the accused is not a full investigation. There are now 4 corrobarating witnesses who will be submitting letters testifying on behalf of Dr. Ford and who knows how many more are out there since the allegations were not investigated. You might want to ask yourselves this question. Why did Dr. Ford bring this up to her friends, her therapist, and her husband, accusing Kavanaugh by name, years before this, years before his being nominated as a SC Justice? It's sort of like Trumps "Obama was born in Kenya" scam, like Dr. Ford knew the future and planned it all out years ahead of time. Now we all know that MM will buy anything, but are you really all that naive?

Kavanaugh was part of the Bush Adminstration, played a key part in drafting the Starr report, was nominated and appointed a judge in the first appeals circuit, and has been in the news for about 2 decades. Got a new excuse?

[Mountain Man]

Link please.

He's probably referring to this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/1429270002/

But it's nothing. They're all people who were supposedly told about the assault decades after the fact, so not "corrobarating [sic] witnesses" as Jimmy falsely claims, and Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh's name to them.

Funny how her attorneys aren't using actual eyewitnesses and other people who can speak directly to the facts to prosecute their case. I wonder why?

[Roy]

...he wasn't at the party where the incident supposedly happened and therefore can not confirm Ramirez's accusations, and that he didn't actually know Kavanaugh personally and only briefly interacted with him for the first few days of his freshman year.

Yes, I found that interesting as well.

I find it interesting that MM can claim with a straight face that Kavanaugh's room-mate didn't know Kavanaugh personally.

Either this is a modern-day reliving of Box and Cox, or MM is merely being a blithering idiot once more.