Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 15, 2019

NYT: (W)hile we found Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's allegations credible during a 10-month investigation, Ms. Deborah Ramirez's story could be more fully corroborated. During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been "the talk of campus." Our reporting suggests that it was.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez's mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez's allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Mr. Kavanaugh did not speak to us because we could not agree on terms for an interview. But he has denied Dr. Ford's and Ms. Ramirez's allegations, and declined to answer our questions about Mr. Stier's account.

Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau " in its supplemental background investigation " interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her "credible." But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. "We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,'" Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez's lawyers, recalled the agents saying. "It was almost a little apologetic."

I don't think that the Democratic congressional women especially are going to forget this or leave it be. If a Democratic president and full congressional leadership is won in 2020, Bret can probably look to become investigated. And if these accusations are supported by evidence and testimony, he may become the first justice impeached in decades.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 02:47 AM | Reply

Leftist rag continues its campaign against Kavanaugh. Film at 11.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-15 09:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Toss in some Russia and impeachment and would would have the perfect democrat county western song.

#3 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-09-15 09:29 AM | Reply

Another one of Tony's moist dream sequences.

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-15 10:10 AM | Reply

4 it seems like there is a new one everyday or so. Dreams live on.

#5 | Posted by homerj at 2019-09-15 10:43 AM | Reply

Democratic presidential contender Julin Castro and some former U.S. attorneys called for a new investigation into Brett Kavanaugh and the past FBI probe into his behavior as another accusation of sexual misconduct against the Supreme Court associate justice surfaced.

Castro called for Kavanaugh's impeachment, tweeting: "It's more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath." He called Kavanaugh's ascendence a "shame to the Supreme Court."

Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) echoed Castro's accusation that Kavanaugh lied under oath to the United States Senate, adding that the majority of senators "didn't care."

Former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance called for a "full congressional investigation" into Kavanaugh's behavior and a probe into his past to "determine whether someone, and if so who, gave orders that kept the FBI from investigating credible allegations."

Another former U.S. attorney, Harry Litman, called the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh a "total con job."

Too bad completing an actual full and thorough investigation is considered a partisan endeavor when said investigation involves any Republican.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 10:44 AM | Reply

Don't forget his racism!

-Dean Baquet

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-15 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Democratic presidential contender Julin Castro...

...is a hack and opportunist who wants to change the subject from his widely-panned debate performance.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-15 11:48 AM | Reply

And then there is this:

Ralph Blasey, the father of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, reportedly offered repeated support last fall to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after Ford made her unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh.

"it appears the Blasey family had significant doubts about what Ford was trying to accomplish by coming forward and making unsubstantiated allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Within days of Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, a fascinating encounter took place. Brett Kavanaugh's father was approached by Ford's father at the golf club where they are both members."

"Ford's father went out of his way to offer to Ed Kavanaugh his support of Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, according to multiple people familiar with the conversation that took place at Burning Tree Club in Bethesda, Maryland," sources at the club confirmed. "'I'm glad Brett was confirmed,' Ralph Blasey told Ed Kavanaugh, shaking his hand. ... The conversation between the two men echoed a letter that Blasey had previously sent to the elder Kavanaugh."

Christine Blasey Ford's Dad Supported Kavanaugh After She Made Accusation

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-15 12:58 PM | Reply

FTE - Ms. Pogrebin and Ms. Kelly are reporters with The Times and authors of the forthcoming book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation."

How much you want to bet in the book, Ramirez doesn't remember the event?

You know how I know .... they don't quote her on the topic ......

I am going with a complete sham to sell a book.

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-15 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#9 so what?

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-15 01:08 PM | Reply

Unbelievable tweet from the NYT.

twitter.com

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-15 01:18 PM | Reply

#11

If your daughter were allegedly assaulted, would you go out of your way to tell her alleged attacker's father that you supported his son and "was glad he was confirmed"?

#13 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-15 01:30 PM | Reply

#7

LOL

Castro-appointed to HHS by Obama

Vance-appointed as US Attorney by Obama, now MSNBC commentator

Litman-appointed as US Attorney by Clinton, nominated to Federal Court, not confirmed, now media whore: WashPo columnist, CNN and MSNBC commentator and podcaster.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-15 01:39 PM | Reply

How heartwarming that the press would return to investigative journalism after an 8-year hiaitus during the Obama administration.

#15 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-15 02:06 PM | Reply

How heartwarming that the press would return to investigative journalism after an 8-year hiaitus during the Obama administration.

POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2019-09-15 02:06 PM | REPLY

Oh puhleaseeeeeeeee. The media was harsher on Obama than Trump by a long ways. I don't know where you get that right wing garbage at.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-15 02:27 PM | Reply

If your daughter were allegedly assaulted, would you go out of your way to tell her alleged attacker's father that you supported his son and "was glad he was confirmed"?

#13 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

No, but I'm not a soulless Republican who'll sell whatever necessary to make a few bucks.

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-15 03:01 PM | Reply

The sham investigation by the FBI resulted in sham findings. Shocker.

#18 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-15 04:28 PM | Reply

"The sham investigation by the FBI resulted in sham findings. Shocker.

#18 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

Do you have any evidence it was a sham investigation, or do you say this for partisan reasons?

#19 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-15 04:33 PM | Reply

The NYT is a sham newspaper.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-15 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not interviewing any of the 25 people offered as witnesses by Ramirez's legal team makes it a sham investigation, and that's just for starters.

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-15 04:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 says the sham poster.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-15 06:26 PM | Reply

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-15 10:44 AM
Castro & Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) made claims of wrongdoing by Kavanaugh without any evidence. That's the kind of thing that gets labelled a lie by the '12,000 lies told by Trump' crowd, at least if it is done by someone with an 'R' after their name.

#23 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-15 07:15 PM | Reply

The media was harsher on Obama than Trump by a long ways.

LMAO, you really think that is true?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-15 07:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#11
If your daughter were allegedly assaulted, would you go out of your way to tell her alleged attacker's father that you supported his son and "was glad he was confirmed"?
#13 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-09-15 01:30 PM

Right, they all have known each other for some time, and undoubtedly Brett's issues have been exasperating. The other parents probably understand this, but that he tried to rape his daughter makes this support seem unreasonable.

What kind of leverage bends that knee? Or, is this in preparation for a cart accident involving cocaine and several self-inflicted shotgun holes. 'Cause that's how police do. And FBI, apparently. If he has the right connections, I presume those have the best access for "problem-solving".

#25 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-09-15 08:37 PM | Reply

Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau " in its supplemental background investigation " interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.
Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her "credible."
But the Republican-controlled Senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. "We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else,'" Bill Pittard, one of Ms. Ramirez's lawyers, recalled the agents saying. "It was almost a little apologetic."

I don't think that the Democratic congressional women especially are going to forget this or leave it be. If a Democratic president and full congressional leadership is won in 2020, Bret can probably look to become investigated. And if these accusations are supported by evidence and testimony, he may become the first justice impeached in decades.
#1 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2019-09-15 02:47 AM

So, the Senate leader Mitch McConnell deliberately prohibited a full FBI investigation, overriding logic and the pleas of victims. Balls-less. The number of legitimately authoritative agencies has dwindled, these others appear to be part of an parasitic criminal syndicate.

#26 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-09-15 08:45 PM | Reply

How much you want to bet in the book, Ramirez doesn't remember the event?
You know how I know .... they don't quote her on the topic ......
I am going with a complete sham to sell a book.

#10 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Boom!

Told ya!

twitter.com

#27 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-16 12:17 AM | Reply

Wow. Once again, fake news exposed.

...and the usual Gobblers strutted about with certainty.

#28 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-16 12:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Boom!

Told ya!

The only thing you told us is that you're incapable of reading what was actually said by those calling for Kavanaugh's impeachment. Hint: Go back and see post #6. NO ONE's current impeachment calls are based on Stier's allegation which you moronically misattributed to Ms. Ramirez. Those calling for his impeachment are doing so on the grounds that Kavanaugh knowingly perjured himself which there is direct evidence of outside of his testimony related to sexual incident claims.

Ms. Ramirez not only remembers what happened to her, she provided the FBI a list of 25 individuals believed to possess corroborating evidence of her allegations, yet ZERO were contacted during the supposed investigation undertaken during the confirmation hearings.

#29 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 07:06 AM | Reply

Oh puhleaseeeeeeeee. The media was harsher on Obama than Trump by a long ways
#16 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2019-09-15 02:27 PM | REPLY

PLEASE POST ANYTHING that could corroborate this!

#30 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-09-16 09:26 AM | Reply

#29 She has no memory of the incident. Case closed.

#31 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 09:54 AM | Reply

#29 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

LMAO ... there was no quote from her at all ..... I speculated she didn't remember ..

Then NYT claims she doesn't either ...

Garbage thread, based upon inference to sell clicks and books.

This is something like the third time I have predicted what would happen. Just by looking at how the "journalist" phrases used in describing or not describing the incident.

The only thing this tells me is you don't think, but only read whats written, not whats not written.

#32 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-16 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The media was harsher on Obama than Trump by a long ways.
----
LMAO, you really think that is true?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#24 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Mohr is completely delusional.

On topic....

The alleged victim denies any recollection of this even happening.

What a shocker and how utterly vile and disgusting the left has become.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:18 AM | Reply

If Trump gets the chance to nominate another justice he'd better pick a woman.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:20 AM | Reply

Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau " in its supplemental background investigation " interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

How can you read this and not think the FBI whitewashed this for Trump?

I've seen some Dem presidential candidates call for impeachment of Kavanaugh, which is pointless because the Senate will never convict. What they need to do is pack the Court to nullify his and the illegitimate Gorsuch's votes.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 10:23 AM | Reply

If Trump gets the chance to nominate another justice he'd better pick a woman.

Don't you loathe identity politics?

At the end of the day, even if he did pick a woman it'd be a woman who votes to roll back womens' rights, so it's not like he'd be doing women any favors.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 10:24 AM | Reply

#32

Again, I guess you have to show your ignorance and inability to read actual copy. The new allegations are not from Ms. Ramirez, they were related by a WITNESS, Mr. Stier, ABOUT another unnamed woman who claims not to remember the events Mr. Stier says he saw himself.

Ms. Ramirez has made copious quotes about her recollections.

You are indeed an imbecile. The only one's laughing are doing so at your expense not mine.

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:29 AM | Reply

How can you read this and not think the FBI whitewashed this for Trump?#35 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-16 10:23 AM | REPLY

You mean like the Russia investigation? The FBI is under major scrutiny right now after Comey trashed their reputation, they will be more by the book now than any time in history. Again the woman has no memory of the incident, how can they investigate something that a the supposide accuser never said happened.

#38 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 10:30 AM | Reply

This is #MeToo nonsense to the absurd extreme. None of these allegations can even be proved. We just recently learned that according to Ford's lawyer she was politically motivated to come forward with her "story".

What they need to do is pack the Court to nullify his and the illegitimate Gorsuch's votes.

#35 | POSTED BY JOE

Brilliant. And when the pendulum swings back to the GOP they'll do the same thing and before you know it we'll have 27 justices sitting on the court.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:48 AM | Reply

Jane Mayer @JaneMayerNYer

The @Newyorker can confirm this: Sen. Chris ----- personally alerted FBI Dir. Chris Wray of an additional eyewitness alleging Kavanaugh exposed himself to a 2nd woman at Yale- but the FBI never interviewed the witness, Max Stier, or investigated it.

New reporting details how FBI limited investigation of Kavanaugh allegations

As Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh prepares for his second year on the Supreme Court, new reporting has detailed how the limits ordered by the White House and Senate Republicans last year constrained the FBI investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct when he was a college freshman.

The FBI was informed of allegations that Kavanaugh, while drunk during his freshman year at Yale, exposed himself to two heavily intoxicated female classmates on separate occasions. The bureau did not interview more than a dozen people who said they could provide information about the incidents.

www.latimes.com

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:57 AM | Reply

According to Mayer, this was Sen. Chris -----:

One of the accounts, reported by Deborah Ramirez, was made public at the time of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. The other, not publicly known until this weekend, was reported by a male classmate who said he witnessed the incident. He unsuccessfully sought to get the FBI to investigate with help from a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to look into the allegation.

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:59 AM | Reply

Ms. Ramirez has made copious quotes about her recollections.

Ramirez is FOS. She was hammered when this allegedly happened and even in her recollection she isn't sure if the dude was even Kavanaugh. She had to be cajoled into coming forward as it was.

The left is pure filth when it comes to Kavanaugh.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 11:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Setting aside the sexual assault claims, there is still the perjury claims that have never been investigated:

During the hearings, Kavanaugh stated under oath that he was never so drunk that he would pass out or forget what he'd done while intoxicated. A number of former classmates who knew him said they were sufficiently upset by that statement, which they considered untruthful, that they contacted the FBI. None received responses from the bureau.

#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:03 AM | Reply

--The left is pure filth when it comes to Kavanaugh.

MoreJohn Ekdahl Retweeted (((AG)))
The Kavanaugh railroad is the most politically clarifying event in my life, and it is why, as the New York Times seems intent on reminding us, I will crawl over broken glass to vote for a guy I don't particularly like next year.

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-16 11:05 AM | Reply

Why I said the FBI conducted a sham investigation:

"The Judiciary Committee's Republican majority gave the FBI a week and said agents could interview four people. The list was later expanded to 10 people at the insistence of the swing-vote senators.

Lawyers for Ford and Ramirez, however, sent letters to Wray that, together, named more than 50 individuals that the bureau's agents should interview. Only nine were ever contacted " all of them from the list that the Republicans had submitted."

No one has ever explained why the investigation was rushed and circumscribed. A lifetime appointment to the SC demanded more than that:

"The FBI's reopened background check, which began late on Friday, Sept. 28, lasted less than a week. The following Saturday, Oct. 6, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh by a largely party-line vote of 50 to 48, the narrowest margin of support for a new justice since 1881."

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:07 AM | Reply

"--The left is pure filth when it comes to Kavanaugh."

I feel that way about the right when it comes to Kavanaugh and also Gorsuch, although for different reasons in the two cases.

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Again the woman has no memory of the incident, how can they investigate something that a the supposide accuser never said happened.

A witness is claiming to have seen an event with his own eyes that involved at least two named people, if not more, one of them being a drunken Brett Kavanaugh. The alleged victim claims not to have a recollection of the events, and although I am not a psychologist, it is not unheard of for people to repress/forget tragic/abhorrent events that they were indeed involved in.

There either are or aren't others who might corroborate the witness' remembrances. It is not scandalous to ask for an investigation based on the above undisputed fact pattern. Young Kavanaugh had a history of drunkenness to the point of blacking out according to his friends, so why should his denials be viewed as the be-all/end-all when others claim to have seen him acting wrongly while inebriated?

If other witnesses come forward and claim to have seen the same thing that Stier claims that he saw, the fact that the victim doesn't have a recollection of the same has to be contextualized with those who do.

This is why thorough investigations are warranted to see if more information than is currently known arises from such efforts or conversely exonerating details and corroboration emerges that confirms the accused's innocence.

#47 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:16 AM | Reply

The FBI was informed of allegations that Kavanaugh, while drunk during his freshman year at Yale, exposed himself to two heavily intoxicated female classmates on separate occasions.

The alleged victim claims not to have a recollection of the events, and although I am not a psychologist, it is not unheard of for people to repress/forget tragic/abhorrent events that they were indeed involved in.

Was the victim was herself too inebriated to remember the events described? Has anyone asked the woman if that was the case as it regards Stier's allegation?

Funny how so much of the information surrounding Kavanaugh and his youth always fits into a coherent narrative damning to his claims of innocence and persecution. Young men like Brett are not persecuted, they're protected by a system that rewards their deviance and buries their transgressions as a right of passage for those so blessed with privilege.

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:30 AM | Reply

The NYT just issued a correction to this story which pretty much guts its premise:

The Times updated their piece to include the fact that the alleged victim in the whole incident said she has no memory of the event. Which, of course, seems like a relevant tidbit to have included in the original story.

The allegation was supposedly made by a former classmate of Kavanaugh's, Max Stier, who reportedly told the FBI he saw Kavanaugh expose himself at a frat party in college some 30-odd years ago, according to the Times. While Stier has declined to talk about the incident publicly, two Times reporters got ahold of his testimony from someone else and ran with it as the Gospel truth.

Those same reporters, however, never actually spoke with the woman who was supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and his friends -- a woman who apparently says she doesn't remember anything of the sort.

"An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party," The Times wrote in a correction Monday. "The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article."

Sad how far the Grey Lady has fallen.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-16 11:49 AM | Reply

#48 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Do you still believe Julie Swetnick?

How about the one where when he was in his 20's he roughed up his date shortly after a wine-filled dinner?

Then that claim about him assaulting a woman on a boat.

After that about how he and another man get a woman into his car, she was then raped by both men and tossed out of the car.

The only new "evidence" to the Ramirez story comes from Max Stier who is a longtime Clinton lackey and longtime foe of Kavanaugh. The 2 of them sparred during the Whitewater investigation.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#49 This is how the left works now when they want someone out. We can't prove that you did something but it is up to you to prove that you didn't.

#51 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 12:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#50

Did I mention any of those today?

The only new "evidence" to the Ramirez story comes from Max Stier who is a longtime Clinton lackey and longtime foe of Kavanaugh.

So that makes what he claims to have witnessed 20 years prior suspect because he was a part of Clinton's impeachment defense team while Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr? Why does being a Democrat make a person non-credible when it comes to bearing witness or investigating a Republican when no other evidence of bias is ever presented?

When and where has Mr. Stier been a "foe" of Kavanaugh as a matter of his profession Jeff?

You hurl accusations without realizing that in reverse no Republican should ever be viewed as impartial or unbiased either. Or are Republicans morally superior to Democrats in your mind, especially the one's who've abandoned their integrity in defending the unquestioned immorality of this President and everything he touches?

#52 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 12:19 PM | Reply

When and where has Mr. Stier been a "foe" of Kavanaugh as a matter of his profession Jeff?

Whitewater. When Kavanaugh quipped about his show trial being part of the Clinton allies trying to enact revenge it didn't occur in a vacuum. Stier is one of the people he was referring to.

Why does being a Democrat make a person non-credible when it comes to bearing witness or investigating a Republican when no other evidence of bias is ever presented?

Being a Democrat isn't what makes him non-credible. The absurdity of his story, the fact that the alleged victim's friends claim she has no recollection of this even happening and the lack of any corroboration are what makes him non-credible.

Or are Republicans morally superior to Democrats in your mind

That would be projection on your part, Tony.

Did I mention any of those today?

They are part of a broad pattern when it comes to Kavanaugh.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 12:41 PM | Reply

The only new "evidence" to the Ramirez story comes from Max Stier who is a longtime Clinton lackey and longtime foe of Kavanaugh. The 2 of them sparred during the Whitewater investigation.

Actually, according to the Time's "Correction", the only new "evidence" is unconfirmed double hearsay (maybe triple) from some anonymous source who heard it from Stier (who refused to talk to reporters to confirm the story) who then told it to the authors of this book who then never spoke to the alleged victim, who it turns out doesn't remember this ever happening.

SMFH

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-16 12:41 PM | Reply

And when the pendulum swings back to the GOP they'll do the same thing and before you know it we'll have 27 justices sitting on the court.

The difference, of course, being that Dems never stole a seat in the first place or appointed a credibly accused rapist, and that the GOP's only "reason" for court packing would be "b-b-but they did it too!"

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 12:54 PM | Reply

The difference, of course, being that Dems never stole a seat in the first place or appointed a credibly accused rapist, and that the GOP's only "reason" for court packing would be "b-b-but they did it too!"
#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 12:54 PM

I believe that you are lying, Joe. But, I'll assume you're not talking about any current member of the SC.
What justice has the GOP appointed who has been credibly accused of being a rapist? And your evidence of those credible claims?

#56 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 01:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#55 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-16 12:54 PM | FLAG: RunningOnFumes

#57 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-16 01:18 PM | Reply

#56 Your definition of "credible" is clearly different than mine. I'm not going to list the credible claims so you can tell me why you think they aren't credible. Not a good use of anyone's time.

You also failed to address the other justice sitting in a stolen seat. But that's fine. Have a great day.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 01:30 PM | Reply

#57 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-09-16 01:18 PM | FLAG: NippingAtAnkles

#59 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 01:31 PM | Reply

We had to suffer through decades of Monica Lewinsky/Clinton, only to now have Republicans point the finger at anyone and everyone that dares to suggest the behavior of the Republican POTUS and the SCOTUS and the Congressman and the Governor andandand as being off limits.

Republicans are weird and creepy. I still think that the FBI should be looking for a Republican that owns a pizza parlor with a basement. That Clinton accusation was entirely too specific to be original, and we know that sex slavery/trafficking is totally believable from the litany of Republican fetishist creeps.

#60 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-16 01:41 PM | Reply

#56 Your definition of "credible" is clearly different than mine. I'm not going to list the credible claims so you can tell me why you think they aren't credible. Not a good use of anyone's time.
You also failed to address the other justice sitting in a stolen seat. But that's fine. Have a great day.
#58 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 01:30 PM

Ok, let's try a different tack. Since we both know that Dr. Ford didn't accuse Kavanaugh of rape, who is the person who you feel credibly accused Kavanaugh of rape?
I failed to address the other justice, because I didn't have any disagreement with your assessment of his situation. I think that you are wrong about Kavanaugh. I think that you are trying to portray Dr. Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh as a claim of rape. That would be factually and ethically wrong. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you are aware of a credible accuser who I am not. Please do let me know who that person is.
You have a good day as well.

#61 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 01:44 PM | Reply

Oh i'm sorry. Credibly accused sexual assailant. Has a much better ring to it.

Have a great day.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 02:00 PM | Reply

Actually, according to the Time's "Correction", the only new "evidence" is unconfirmed double hearsay (maybe triple) from some anonymous source who heard it from Stier (who refused to talk to reporters to confirm the story) who then told it to the authors of this book who then never spoke to the alleged victim, who it turns out doesn't remember this ever happening.
SMFH

#54 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

So you are okay with the 25 witnesses that were not interviewed?

May or may not be admissible in Court. But it certain is sufficient for investigations and determinations of those investigations.

ROC, you are a lawyer. You know damn well "hearsay" and "double hearsay" are used as the basis in most investigations by law enforcement. You also know there are a plethera of exceptions that would have admitted many of these statements into a trial court.

Just be honest: The investigation was a shame. You don't have to speculate to its outcome if there was an investigation.

#63 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-16 02:05 PM | Reply

Oh goody, the semantic parsing!

Let's be on our toes, because it's extremely important not to paint a picture of a member of the SCOTUS that isn't accurate:

Attempted rape. Sexual assault. Sexual misconduct.

I feel so much better about him now that we've cleared up that he wasn't accused of rape. He seems like such a stand-up guy now. Glad we got that out of the way.

#64 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-16 02:33 PM | Reply

Just don't call it an impeachment inquiry because then ROC will accuse you of spinning it.

#65 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-16 02:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Just be honest: The investigation was a sham. You don't have to speculate to its outcome if there was an investigation.

This is why thorough investigations are warranted to see if more information than is currently known arises from such efforts or conversely exonerating details and corroboration emerges that confirms the accused's innocence.

All of us wanting to see the allegations and probable perjury of Kavanaugh competently and professionally investigated are persecutors, yet those trashing any and all claiming to be victimized by him are contemptible for even wanting to have their stories looked into?

This is Republican 'justice' in the era of Trump: We'll believe anything that you tell us on your word alone as long as you're an unwavering supporter of JUST US.

#66 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 02:39 PM | Reply

Short of an explicit rape porn staring Kavanaugh, he's not going anywhere.

Even if such thing was found, I doubt conservatives would care.

Conservatives are winning. That's all that matters.

The future of this country has become a game.

#67 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-16 02:53 PM | Reply

We'll believe anything that you tell us on your word alone

You are really projecting today.

That is how Dems regard Blasey-Ford's allegation. Just blurt out enough vague information making her story impossible to be proven false.

Never mind the fact that none of her named witnesses, including an old friend (who was threatened with being smeared if she didn't play along) have any recollection of this ever happening.

Yet Joe calls her allegation credible, in spite of her obvious lies - the reason for the second door on her house, her fear of flying and tight spaces. Then there are the things she said that friends and acquaintances refute. Her ex-boyfriend claims she never expressed a fear of flying or of being confined in small spaces with only one egress. He also disputes her lie detector claim saying he knows of an instance where she coached a person on how to take a polygraph. Blasey-Ford also said she had a difficult time with relationships with boys after the alleged event, yet people who knew her at the time said she was very aggressive with boys and her behavior was not at all consistent with a girl who suffered a sexual trauma.

In spite all of that, partisan Democrats/progressives/liberals have zero doubt that her story is true. Never mind the fact that he has zero record of ever behaving like that at any other point in his life.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 03:14 PM | Reply

I read recently that the latest accusation was based on information from a Nigerian prince. If we can help him extradite his family fortune of 1,000,000 in US money dollars he could proof.

#69 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-16 03:19 PM | Reply

Ok, let's try a different tack. Since we both know that Dr. Ford didn't accuse Kavanaugh of rape, who is the person who you feel credibly accused Kavanaugh of rape?
I failed to address the other justice, because I didn't have any disagreement with your assessment of his situation. I think that you are wrong about Kavanaugh. I think that you are trying to portray Dr. Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh as a claim of rape. That would be factually and ethically wrong. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you are aware of a credible accuser who I am not. Please do let me know who that person is.
You have a good day as well.

#61 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-09-16 01:44 PM | FLAG:

"My Mom. My name is really Joe Kavanaugh and I'm pissed at dad for not allowing me the transgender steroid shots I wanted and needed."
#62 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-16 02:00 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

#70 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 03:31 PM | Reply

We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn't recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford's accuracy. "I don't have any confidence in the story."

And then there's this:

"I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn't comply," Keyser told the reporters, a stunning admission of the pressure to which she was subjected to by Blasey Ford's allies.

To make matters worse, Keyser was opposed to Kavanaugh's nomination. Apparently, she wasn't SO opposed that she was willing to lie in order to bolster her friend's almost laughably implausible allegation.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 03:33 PM | Reply

I love watching rightwingers who have never set foot in a courtroom or a police department pretend to know what is and isn't evidence.

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 03:34 PM | Reply

#72 Wow! That was quite the rejoinder, Joe.

You really showed us ignorant right-wingers a thing or two, by golly.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 03:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

The media was harsher on Obama than Trump by a long ways.

Why do we even let Laura post dribble like this?

Chris Mathews was literally orgasming tingles up his leg and Rachel Madcow was about to go straight so she could give Obama a--------..

#74 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-16 03:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So you are okay with the 25 witnesses that were not interviewed?
May or may not be admissible in Court. But it certain is sufficient for investigations and determinations of those investigations.
ROC, you are a lawyer. You know damn well "hearsay" and "double hearsay" are used as the basis in most investigations by law enforcement. You also know there are a plethera of exceptions that would have admitted many of these statements into a trial court.
Just be honest: The investigation was a shame. You don't have to speculate to its outcome if there was an investigation.

#63 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2019-09-16 02:05 PM | FLAG:

You act like there are 25 witnesses that are out there that won't open up their mouths unless the FBI calls them. I'm sure that if there was any truth to this story CNN and MSNBC would be paying millions to even 1 eye witness that would come on and talk about it. Hell, they would pay millions to anyone who can say they heard from someone who once knew one of the witnesses.

#75 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You act like there are 25 witnesses that are out there that won't open up their mouths unless the FBI calls them"

He must not have called your mom.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-16 03:44 PM | Reply

#73 I've painstakingly gone over the elements of this case with you. You don't care. You seem to be very passionate about defending Blackout Brett. You repeat the same -------- over and over no matter how many times the word "corroboration" is defined for you. Why would i bother spending additional hours rehashing a discussion i've already had with you?

You do you, Jeff. You go get that sexual assault victim. Rawr!

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 03:45 PM | Reply

I love watching rightwingers who have never set foot in a courtroom or a police department pretend to know what is and isn't evidence.

#72 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-09-16 03:34 PM | FLAG:

You mean like the underage photos they found in your backpack with the gram of crack?

#78 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's an awfull specific ad hominem. Something you want to tell us, fishpus?

#79 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 03:57 PM | Reply

Jeff,

You've continued to fail to address the issue. What is so untoward about a full and thorough investigation into ALL the credible allegations of Brett's activities now at issue? The very behavior of heavy drinking was proven beyond any doubt because Kavanaugh wrote about it himself. Is it that unusual for an extremely drunk person to forget what they've done once they sober up? Of course it is. Kavanaugh could be telling the truth that he doesn't remember, but that still doesn't mean some of the events in question didn't happen.

I don't care for what you THINK you know, for you have not interviewed one individual involved, visited one witness nor gathered a single piece of evidence. You are an observer just like the rest of us.

If Kavanaugh did not do any of the things he's accused of, then he will be publicly cleared and life goes on. If Kavanaugh indeed committed any of the acts he's sworn that he didn't, he should be held accountable. The cries of cover up are expressed because people want to take snippets of information and run with them in his defense, claiming that to ask questions or investigate is beyond the pale because of how it negatively affects HIM in the present, while dragging the reputations of those accusing him into the mud when not a single accuser has wanted anything but their own stories to be professionally investigated and have actual and potential witnesses be questioned in the manner befitting of a competent investigation.

In other words, Kavanaugh deserves to be treated as a suspect because that's what he is. Enough probable cause exists to support a complete investigation, then let the process run its course with Kavanaugh retaining his presumption of innocence. What needs to stop is the projection of guilt or nefarious motives placed upon those claiming that Kavanaugh's crude behavior years ago invaded their lives, not the other way around.

#80 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've painstakingly gone over the elements of this case with you

The only corroboration she gave was her comments to her therapist 4 years prior. Of course, the number of people she told her therapist at the time was different than what she testified to in front of the Senate committee.

You repeat the same -------- over and over no matter how many times the word "corroboration" is defined for you.

Please cite a single factual claim that I've made on this thread that was wrong.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 04:03 PM | Reply

#80 Tony,

Ramirez said she wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself and nobody corroborated her story. She had to be cajoled into coming forward at all. - Nothing here to investigate.

Then there's Swetnick and the other absurd allegations I cited up-thread, all of which were walked back within a week. - Again, nothing here to investigate.

Throw in this new one by a Clinton operative and political foe of Kavanaugh.

I would love to have Blasey Ford's claims investigated, but I don't think you'd like the outcome.

Bottom line is, Democrats threw as much ---- at the wall as possible in the hopes that something would stick.

Nothing stuck and the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh.

It's over and it would be better for your collective mental health to accept reality and move on.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Blasey-Ford also said she had a difficult time with relationships with boys after the alleged event, yet people who knew her at the time said she was very aggressive with boys and her behavior was not at all consistent with a girl who suffered a sexual trauma."

"her behavior was not at all consistent"

That's a wrong factual claim, JeffJ.
There's no "consistent behavior" to look for in someone who has suffered a sexual trauma.
People react differently.
I'm confident you know this, in a very personal way.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-16 04:14 PM | Reply

Please cite a single factual claim that I've made on this thread that was wrong.

What part of "Why would i bother spending additional hours rehashing a discussion i've already had with you" don't you understand?

#84 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 04:18 PM | Reply

Ramirez said she wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself and nobody corroborated her story. She had to be cajoled into coming forward at all. - Nothing here to investigate.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez's mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.

Ms. Ramirez's legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau " in its supplemental background investigation " interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own.

Really Jeff? WTF is your problem! Do you think we're idiots? The story is replete with corroboration. And when those 25 people are questioned, they might lead to even more people tangentially involved in the events, who knows? That's why you investigate.

You've devolved into a rightwing spewing, fact ignoring hack.

#85 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You've devolved into a rightwing spewing, fact ignoring hack.
POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2019-09-16 04:19 PM | REPLY

Congrats. You figured Jeff out.

#86 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-16 04:24 PM | Reply

I wonder if Jeff ever got to the bottom of Dr. Ford's double door dilemma.

#87 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-16 04:34 PM | Reply

#83. How she characterized how her trauma affected her ability to interact with boys is at odds with what was observed by those who knew her at the time.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 04:57 PM | Reply

" How she characterized how her trauma affected her ability to interact with boys is at odds with what was observed by those who knew her at the time."

You sound like Mike Tyson's lawyer.
Like I said, you know intimately that what you're saying has no basis.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-16 04:58 PM | Reply

I heard a rumor and here's a list of 25 others that may have heard the same or similar rumor.

FBI: Yeah, we're not going to investigate that.

#90 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-16 05:14 PM | Reply

NYT link is behind a paywall.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 05:29 PM | Reply

OK, I was able to read the NYT story. It's pretty obvious the authors have an agenda due to how everything was characterized.

Do we have any eyewitnesses who can corroborate Ramirez's or Steir's claims?

Heck, Ramirez admits she was hammered at the time and isn't really even sure it was Kavanaugh.

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 06:02 PM | Reply

These 2 authors spent 10 months investigating. In the linked article they don't give any names or any witnesses (maybe the do in their book?).

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 06:04 PM | Reply

It's pretty obvious the authors have an agenda due to how everything was characterized.

Your lack of self-awareness is even more humorous than your police work.

#94 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 06:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That's a wrong factual claim, JeffJ.

How can a fact be wrong?

#95 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-16 06:17 PM | Reply

Boaz, I understand what you are saying, but it was in response to this: "Please cite a single factual claim that I've made on this thread that was wrong."

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-16 06:24 PM | Reply

These 2 authors spent 10 months investigating. In the linked article they don't give any names or any witnesses (maybe the do in their book?).

It should never have been about "naming names." It's obvious none of these people are coming forward for public notoriety, they're coming forward because the issue of Kavanaugh's conduct (and either his truth telling or lies about same) became of massive public interest due to his SCOTUS nomination.

What acts these people allegedly saw Kavanaugh do in college (outside of those subjected to them) were not integral to their adult lives and I'm sure most of them gave scant thought about it unless/until they saw Kavanaugh mentioned in the news as his ascension through government took place, if at all.

Stier was studying when he saw what he claims, he was not drinking nor a part of whatever the group including Kavanaugh was doing. He IS an eyewitness. Quite possibly, he can name others who may have seen what he claimed or can corroborate that he contemporaneously shared what he saw with others who can verify his claims. Either he can prove that he was at Yale in Kav's dorm at the time of the incident, or he wasn't. His work for Democrats and Clinton almost 20 years later has nothing to do with what he saw in the 1980s. Guilt by association is exactly that. Is there evidence that Stiers has ever had any gripe with or shown animus toward Kavanaugh over the last 35 years?

Lastly, I find it quite interesting that those who have been named as possible witnesses (or the victim in Stier's case) do not say with absolute certainty that specific events didn't happen. It's almost universally that they can't remember, and alcohol consumption was involved in each case. In most courts Stier would be a more credible witness than those drinking with Kavanaugh, if they were indeed inebriated. And I'm sure there were other sober students that can confirm or deny that too.

All of these things could be made clearer with a thorough investigation.

#97 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 06:43 PM | Reply

I find it hard to believe that anyone could deem this investigation to have been thorough and complete. With that in mind, consider the following:

If Kavanaugh were in fact innocent, it would have been in his best interest to fully and completely investigate the matter so as to fully exonerate him and remove all doubt in the eyes of the public.

Someone decided that shouldn't happen, and we got a truncated investigation anyway.

Why?

#98 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 06:55 PM | Reply

Since it's almost impossible to prove a negative, these specious accusations should be dismissed with prejudice. They are laughable and only serve to discredit those that keep making them and insist they need to be investigated.

#99 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-16 07:03 PM | Reply

Put them in the form of dossier and pay Steele to submit it, that's worked in the past.

#100 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-16 07:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Why? Because it was 11th hour -------- that was obviously highly partisan. You got your wish. Two investigative journalists spent 10 months researching this and most likely cherry-picked what they uncovered in order to paint Kavanaugh in the worst possible light if the embedded piece is any indication.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 08:17 PM | Reply

Dem preemptive strike on the Supreme Court. I think they have been told by RBG that she ain't going to make it until after the election so they are trying to whip up outrage so Trump cannot get another nominee regardless of the outcome of the election. That or Breyer. Wait a couple of weeks and we will know which one.

#102 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 08:31 PM | Reply

"You got your wish. Two investigative journalists spent 10 months researching"

What Dems wanted was a legitimate FBI investigation before Kav was confirmed. Too bad Republicans hacks didn't trust the process and want the same thing.

#103 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:16 PM | Reply

In other words, Kavanaugh deserves to be treated as a suspect because that's what he is. Enough probable cause exists to support a complete investigation, then let the process run its course with Kavanaugh retaining his presumption of innocence. What needs to stop is the projection of guilt or nefarious motives placed upon those claiming that Kavanaugh's crude behavior years ago invaded their lives, not the other way around.

#80 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 04:02 PM
So who's going to step forward to press some charges so that the investigation you want so much to happen can happen? We all begged for Dr. Ford to file charges. Which accuser is going to actually make an accusation?
Until that happens, then No he doesn't deserve to be treated as a suspect, because that's not what he is. No single person has come forward to any law enforcement agency and provided any proof of anything that would support an investigation. You're lying to yourself and us with your completely false claims that probably cause exists.

#104 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 09:16 PM | Reply

probable

#105 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 09:22 PM | Reply

What Dems wanted was a legitimate FBI investigation before Kav was confirmed. Too bad Republicans hacks didn't trust the process and want the same thing.

#103 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

There was a process for doing that. Feinstien sat on Ford's allegations until the last possible minute and in lieu of asking for an investigation behind closed doors, per Senate procedure and Dr. Ford's expressed wishes (I think she was lying about that given that she and Feinstein leaked to WaPo). Feinstein should have been censured for her actions. This never should have gone public and the stunt Feinstein pulled was beyond disgusting.

#106 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:28 PM | Reply

Dr. Ford's expressed wishes (I think she was lying about that given that she and Feinstein leaked to WaPo).
#106 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Ford is a liar. Feinstein should be in jail too for lying about not knowing who did the leak. This was all coordinated and anyone pretending otherwise probably also thinks WWE is real.

#107 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 09:31 PM | Reply

You got your wish. Two investigative journalists

Haha. Did you even read he post you were responding to?

#108 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 09:40 PM | Reply

1056 Hmm, sounds like one of those pesky "process crimes" we hear about so often. Next you'll tell me Feinstein lied to federal agents (and that it doesn't matter).

#109 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 09:41 PM | Reply

#109 I didn't say Feinstein lied to federal agents.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:50 PM | Reply

Republicans know Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath: They just don't care

The Kavanaugh defense was not:

"Yes, I drank too much in my last year of high school and first year of college, misbehaved in ways that embarrass me now, I am sincerely sorry, and have never done anything like it since."

His defense was: It's all lies, every word.

Remember when he said Devil's Triangle was a drinking game? That Renate Alumnius was a reflection of respect and friendship? That "Beach Week Ralph Club" was about his weak stomach and not binge drinking? He lied to our faces, and it was blatant and beyond credulity at the time.

Yep, no one has any reason to question poor Brett Kavanaugh and his privileged little drunken matriculation. Just like the President who's been accused of sexual misconduct by 17 women, paid off a pornstar to hide an illicit affair that occured while his youngest son was still nursing, and said on tape that he likes to commit sexual assault, the women are all liars. Every single one of them.

Glad we cleared that up.

#111 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 09:52 PM | Reply

"Yes, I drank too much in my last year of high school and first year of college, misbehaved in ways that embarrass me now, I am sincerely sorry, and have never done anything like it since."

I was just saying to a friend tonight I don't know why Kav didn't just say/admit that.

#112 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:00 PM | Reply

Here is a bombshell (I've touched on it up-thread) from the NYT piece:

"I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn't comply," Keyser told the authors.

The MSM is ignoring it but it will get picked up by some pretty big voices on the right.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#112 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Kavanaugh - like most in government as less than impressive individuals. I think he came off as a bit of a goof to be honest. They should have attacked that rather than make up sex assault claims. As it were, they wasted all their time and energy on the liar Ford while trying to make anyone that drank alcohol in high school and college seem like a sexual deviant. That is why you have lost the working man. You know, I like beer too.

#114 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:06 PM | Reply

I didn't say Feinstein lied to federal agents.

I know, i was giving an example of something Trumpers have called a "process crime" and say isn't a big deal when someone on their team does it.

I was 50/50 on whether that post would make sense to anyone but me..

#115 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 09:51 AM | Reply

The NYT Reporters Say Editors Removed Exculpatory Information About Kavanaugh!!!

FFS!

#116 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-17 10:01 AM | Reply

"In your draft of the article, did it include those words that have since been added to the article?" O'Donnell asked the reporters.

"It did," they both replied.

"So somewhere in the editing process those words were trimmed?" the MSNBC host asked.

Told YA Told Ya Told YA..

#117 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-17 10:03 AM | Reply


"Yes, I drank too much in my last year of high school and first year of college, misbehaved in ways that embarrass me now, I am sincerely sorry, and have never done anything like it since."

I was just saying to a friend tonight I don't know why Kav didn't just say/admit that.

#112 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Because the democrats are trying to convict him on any admission.

#118 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-17 11:25 AM | Reply

I was just saying to a friend tonight I don't know why Kav didn't just say/admit that.
#112 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:00 PM

He didn't want to be at risk for lying to the Senate. If Dr. Ford had then come forward and said that she'd made the whole thing up or another person came forward and said 'No, it was me, John Doe, who did that to you, Dr Ford, in that DC house, here's where, when and who else was there', you think that someone who had lied to the Senate under oath would be on the Supreme Court?
You problem is that you've already made up your mind that he's lying. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that he might be telling the truth. Are you able to concede that Kavanaugh could be telling the absolute truthand Dr. Ford could be mistaken?

#119 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 11:53 AM | Reply

Because the democrats are trying to convict him on any admission.

#118 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Benghaaziiiiiiiiiiii!

#120 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-17 05:59 PM | Reply

The SCOTUS nominee lied under oath.

The SCOTUS nominee cried, pouted and shouted on live TV, like a whiny little b.

The Repubicans in the Senate withheld potentially incriminating documentation.

The FBI was told to stand down on further investigation.

This isn't going to just go away.

#121 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-17 06:04 PM | Reply

This isn't going to just go away.

#121 | POSTED BY CHUFFY

You'd better hope it does go away.

The NYT is getting pilloried not just on the right but on the mainstream left.

Have you not followed the developments over the last 24 hours or so?

#122 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 06:08 PM | Reply

#122 -

That's your argument? Don't give up your day job.

You'd better hope it does go away.
Not if what you have to say is why. You don't get to tell me what I should/should not hope for. But, OK, let's see why you think I should hope for the perjuring rapist scandal to go away...

The NYT is getting pilloried not just on the right but on the mainstream left.
Oh, I see, ad hominem. The NYT is being pilloried, so my comments don't stand. Got it. And both sides, too. Very nice work.

Have you not followed the developments over the last 24 hours or so?
Not particularly, but if I understand them, the "developments" are:
People are building strawman arguments around 2 conflated, separate incidents. There is a clarification in the NYT, which is being spun as a retraction (it is not) - a woman suggested that she was intoxicated during an event but named 25 people who could corroborate the incident as it happened, the FBI chose not to investigate and refused to take calls/statements from any of them. Another incident was brought into the fold by a separate person, who again indicated that the FBI refused to investigate. Seems to me like you are going out of your way to discredit the NYT on a technicality. It also appears that you are failing at that.

I doubt this will go away any time soon.
Neither will Stormy Daniels, despite Avenatti's troubles.
Neither will the Mueller Report, despite the DOJ's interference.

The ball is rolling, and you wingnuts are going to have to work extra hard to keep your stories straight.

#123 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-18 05:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The SCOTUS nominee lied under oath. - Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-17 06:04 PM |
Oh look. Someone else who claims, without any evidence, that Kavanaugh lied under oath. How completely unexpected.
Please quote a lie that Kavanaugh told, and ANY evidence that you have that it is a lie.

#124 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 06:01 PM | Reply

Not particularly, but if I understand them...#123 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-18 05:49 PM
You most assuredly don't.

#125 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 06:02 PM | Reply

#123 | POSTED BY CHUFFY AT 2019-09-18 05:49 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Delusional

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 06:25 PM | Reply

"I doubt this will go away any time soon.

Neither will Stormy Daniels, despite Avenatti's troubles.
Neither will the Mueller Report, despite the DOJ's interference.
The ball is rolling, and you wingnuts are going to have to work extra hard to keep your stories straight.

#123 | POSTED BY CHUFFY "

Actually, they will because of the Democrats' cowardice and and unwillingness to bring up articles of impeachment.

Yes, the ball is rolling Has been for years. And it will continue to roll forever because the party of cowards will just sit around and bitch, bitch, bitch, rather than impeach, impeach, impeach.

#127 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-18 06:30 PM | Reply

#127

They are methodically going through the process, building an ironclad case, so when the cowardly traitors in the Republican Party are up against it, they will be exposed.

People who rely on conservative media outlets for their information aren't going to know what hit them. Yesterday's Lewandowski hearing is a prime example. The wingnuttosphere sees "Democrats got owned." Those of us who watched Barry Berke, however, got to enjoy the establishment of yet another article...

I still can't figure out who the first person going to jail for contempt is going to be. I think they're saving it for someone higher up the food chain.

#128 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-09-18 07:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort