Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Cow Poke]

I knew a woman, who has since died, who was so traumatized by her abortion that she had a quiet birthday remembrance every year since. Most women still have a conscience about such things.

Yes, the pregnancy center we're involved with does much counseling for post-abortion women. It's truly sad.

[Cow Poke]

Nobody's blaming the women - it's your kind of "murdering children is a right" idiocy that does the damage.

Sometimes I have to believe you're just being incredibly dense or dishonest or provocative or whatever just for effect.

They have to be grown up and deal with a situation that men helped to create. Your piety is misplaced.

You jackassery is ever present.

[Cow Poke]

More About the Second Door

An important part of any investigation involves timelines.

[firstfloor]

Sometimes I have to believe you're just being incredibly dense or dishonest or provocative or whatever just for effect.

[One Bad Pig]

This sounds suspiciously like an ...uncompromising position.

[KingsGambit]

What makes you certain it's not his contemporaries who are lying? As we've seen, those on the left are willing to do and say anything to stop this confirmation.

A couple of the terms were extremely well established nationwide at the time so it's not as if just one or two classmates were stepping forward to contradict him.

[Cow Poke]

[RumTumTugger]

More About the Second Door

An important part of any investigation involves timelines.

this puts things in a different light doesn't it.

[rogue06]

More About the Second Door

An important part of any investigation involves timelines.

Oops.

Source: Renovation Records Undercut Ford's Exit-Door Account

Source

© Copyright Original Source

I'll bet that for the most part this will be studiously ignored by the MSM which was all aflutter that Kavanaugh wanted to push back when he learned of Deborah Ramirez's accusation when the New Yorker started questioning his friends and former classmates about it.

[Tassman]

Oops.

Source: Renovation Records Undercut Ford's Exit-Door Account

Source

© Copyright Original Source

I'll bet that for the most part this will be studiously ignored by the MSM which was all aflutter that Kavanaugh wanted to push back when he learned of Deborah Ramirez's accusation when the New Yorker started questioning his friends and former classmates about it.

The bottom line is that Dr Ford's testimony was credible, as is generally agreed. And Kavanaugh, despite his dishonest contrary story on Fox, was known to be a heavy drinker during his Yale days and would become belligerent and aggressive when drunk...plus very likely subject to blackouts as a consequence. This according to numerous of his Yale contemporaries.

Hence both stories could be true, i.e. Ford was sexually attacked by a highly drunken Kavanaugh, who has no memory of the occurrence and so denies it. But does one want such a man on the Supreme Court?

[One Bad Pig]

The bottom line is that Dr Ford's testimony was credible, as is generally agreed. And Kavanaugh, despite his dishonest contrary story on Fox, was known to be a heavy drinker during his Yale days and would become belligerent and aggressive when drunk...plus very likely subject to blackouts as a consequence. This according to numerous of his Yale contemporaries.

Hence both stories could be true, i.e. Ford was sexually attacked by a highly drunken Kavanaugh, who has no memory of the occurrence and so denies it. But does one want such a man on the Supreme Court?

I am truly impressed that you managed to come away from rogue's post with the idea that Dr. Ford's testimony was credible after everything he quoted poked holes in it. Never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs, eh?

[Starlight]

The bottom line is that Dr Ford's testimony was credible, as is generally agreed. And Kavanaugh, despite his dishonest contrary story on Fox, was known to be a heavy drinker during his Yale days and would become belligerent and aggressive when drunk...plus very likely subject to blackouts as a consequence. This according to numerous of his Yale contemporaries.

Hence both stories could be true, i.e. Ford was sexually attacked by a highly drunken Kavanaugh, who has no memory of the occurrence and so denies it. But does one want such a man on the Supreme Court?

Yep. And more problematic is the number of different perjury allegations against Kavanaugh, with numerous friends and acquaintances of his poking holes in his claims under oath.

[Alsharad]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Feinstein doesn't control the nomination process, the Republicans do. Feinstein might have been unwilling to let Brett Kavanaugh ascend to SCOTUS prior to finding out he was a possible sexual assaulter. She might have been even more unwilling once she believed he'd committed sexual assault. She can, and has, voted against his confirmation in the committee, and will presumably do so again once this reaches the senate floor.

And this is all irrelevant to the argument I presented. She didn't have to have the power to put him in place, she just had to know that it would likely happen.

Your concern would only be relevant if she had real power in the situation, like, say Chuck Grassley does. He, and his fellow Republican Senators are actually the ones who have to decide if they are willing to let someone that most of the country believes has committed sexual assault sit on SCOTUS. They are the ones who will make this decision, so your logic should be applied to them, not Feinstein who has voted against Kavanaugh. If you think Feinstein is at fault for sitting on an allegation of sexual assault due to the request for confidentiality, how much more are the Republicans at fault now that the allegation has been publicly aired and the accuser acknowledged as a credible witness (even by the Fox News hosts) at fault for their apparent willingness to put a sexual assaulter onto SCOTUS?

She does have real power. She could call an investigation, she could question him about it when she met with him, she could have taken it to the chairman, she could have taken it to the entire committee. If she believed the letter or if she believed that it might have been true, then it is incumbent on her to act or to be willing to accept the consequences of her inaction (which may be putting someone that committed sexual assault on the SCOTUS). I honestly don't think that she is at "fault" for anything. I think that she got stuck here and she doesn't like it.

For someone with a philosophy degree, you seem to be missing something. You obviously cannot apply the same argument to the republicans. Let's look again...

1 She had the letter. (not true of republicans)
2 She took no action. (not true of republicans - they acted much more quickly once it was leaked, including volunteering to send investigators to Ford)
3 She didn't leak it. (n/a as they had nothing to leak)
4 She either :
a) believes Dr. Ford. (might be true of republicans)
b) does not believe Dr. Ford (true of some republicans)
c) withheld judgement (true of some republicans)
5 She knew that Kavanaugh would pass the committee and be confirmed along party lines. (true of republicans)

Not all of the conditionals do not hold true for republicans, therefore, the same argument fails against them. They acted when they got the information. They have asked for and listened to testimony. They have asked for/not fought against additional investigation. All of these are the hallmarks of people that want to know the truth. Why do they want to know? Because they do not want to put someone guilty of sexual assault on the SCOTUS.

You haven't shown that my premises are false nor have you shown that the argument was not valid. She may not have consciously or intentionally done it, but I don't see how you can, given the facts that we have, escape the conclusion that she was willing to put someone guilty of sexual assault on the SCOTUS.

You simply cannot say that about republicans using the same argument. Their actions to date are in line with the belief that they want due process and more than unsupported allegations before they make a decision.

Given Trump's own video-taped admission of sexual assault that was released prior to his election, if the Republicans vote to put yet another sexual assault accused onto SCOTUS (in addition to Clarence Thomas) they will simply cement their reputation as the party of sexual assault in the eyes of the nation, and be openly admitting they are willing to put sexual assaulters on SCOTUS just as they are willing to put them into the Presidency.

Or the country will see this proceeding for what it is... democrats playing dirty pool and politics. As you can see here, if the FBI comes back with no additional information and no corroborating evidence, 60% of the US thinks Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

Oh hey, look! It looks like Dr. Ford may have committed perjury.

Source: DailyWire

A new letter, released by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), states that a former boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed her coaching someone on how to take a polygraph test, despite the fact that she testified under oath that she had never done so.

© Copyright Original Source

[Terraceth]

past

[Tassman]

I am truly impressed that you managed to come away from rogue's post with the idea that Dr. Ford's testimony was credible after everything he quoted poked holes in it. Never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs, eh?

Both Dr Ford AND Kavanaugh have holes in their testimony but the former's memory lapses are consistent with sexual abuse victims. Traumatic amnesia is a common phenomenon in such circumstances. OTOH Kavanaugh's testimony seems calculated to be deliberately misleading. The choirboy, moderate-drinking, virginal image he presented on Fox has been flatly contradicted by his Yale contemporaries plus his Yearbook entry and personal calendar.

Yep. And more problematic is the number of different perjury allegations against Kavanaugh, with numerous friends and acquaintances of his poking holes in his claims under oath.

Yes exactly.