Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 16, 2019

Jennifer Rubin: In September 2018, I warned about the abbreviated FBI investigation into allegations that Brett M. Kavanaugh engaged in sexually aggressive behavior: "If Democrats retake one or both houses in November, they will be able to investigate, subpoena witnesses and conduct their own inquiry. The result will be a cloud over the Supreme Court and possible impeachment hearings ... Kavanaugh has not cleared himself but rather undermined faith in the judicial system that presumes that facts matter." And sure enough, two New York Times reporters have found multiple witnesses to the allegations from Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself during a dorm party at Yale. One newly discovered witness had information concerning yet another, similar event.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

One newly discovered witness had information concerning yet another, similar event. That witness, Max Stier, is the chief executive of Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that, among other things, tracks nominations and confirmations. According to the Times report, he brought the information to the Senate Judiciary Committee (Who? Who knew about this?) and to the FBI.

Comments

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

Hey Republicans, you built this. Now don't blame the rest of us for trying to correct your partisan mistake.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-09-16 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Written before the story was confirmed as fake, but you can go ahead and get all amped up again Moder8. A little late to the party..again.

#2 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Not fake. Talk about a bulls*** spin on the actual story. Again, fools like Fishpaw built this.

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-09-16 04:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The woman who supposidely had Kavanough's penis pulled by someone else to touch her hand while a freshman in college said IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Let me guess Moder8, Avenatti is your idol.

#4 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 04:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Not fake. Talk about a bulls*** spin on the actual story. Again, fools like Fishpaw built this.

Hey r-word, the NYT themselves issued a retraction.

#5 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-09-16 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The New York Times has taken heat from both sides of the aisle for walking back its now-revised allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh Sunday after swift backlash -- with even MSNBC's liberal morning show and "The View" taking issue with the Gray Lady.

The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the purported sexual assault. The newspaper also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no other comment about the episode. As a result, some on the left and right came together and united against the paper.

#6 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-09-16 04:49 PM | Reply

"Describe the penis in detail"

-Fishpus

#7 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 04:56 PM | Reply

#7 It looks like Joe after a haircut.

#8 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-16 05:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

But NYTimes editors also omitted another important detail, that Max Stier, the accuser who "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," worked as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier's legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation.

#9 | Posted by homerj at 2019-09-16 05:38 PM | Reply

One of these days Moder8 is going to get one right yet.

#10 | Posted by homerj at 2019-09-16 05:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Jennifer Rubin is a reactionist mess. She'll broadcast any rumor before the truth is even discussed.

#11 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-16 06:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Former conservative and now hysterical TDSer Rubin has been a useful idiot for the Left ever since Trump won the nomination.

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-16 06:07 PM | Reply

We need to stop this character assassination in both parties. Democrats, you need to stop trying to destroy everything the opposite side puts up. You lost. Live with the results like everyone else has to when you put up some fool in the WH or Congress.

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-16 06:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

We need to stop this character assassination in both parties. Democrats, you need to stop trying to destroy everything the opposite side puts up. You lost. Live with the results like everyone else has to when you put up some fool in the WH or Congress.

#13 | Posted by boaz

I love it how the rights acts as if it's the left that should just accept things.

Newsflash, boaz, your side is maintaining power with nothing but tricks, cheats and deceit.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-16 06:17 PM | Reply

Jennifer Rubin is a reactionist mess. She'll broadcast any rumor before the truth is even discussed.

POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT AT 2019-09-16 06:04 PM | REPLY

So Lee has jumped onto the right wing troll band wagon?? Sad that.

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-16 06:18 PM | Reply

"TDS"

*drink*

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 06:20 PM | Reply

#13 | Posted by boaz

You mention both parties needing to stop character assassination and subsequently only bash Democrats.

Your partisanship is showing, hack.

#17 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-09-16 06:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Democrats, you need to stop trying to destroy everything the opposite side puts up."

Noone's really tried to character assassinate Gorsuch.
I'd say this is largely because Kavanaugh lacks both his temperament and qualifications.

Look at how many of Trump's people have resigned, been indicted, even convicted.
They're destroying themselves.
Democrats are right to oppose those scoundrels, and you're wrong to support them.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-16 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In my testimony I casually mentioned
The fact that I like to drink beer
This little song is more to the point
Roll out the barrel and lend me your ears

I like beer! It makes me a jolly good fellow
I like beer! I pull out my junk and make all the coeds say 'hello'
Whiskey's too rough, Champagne costs too much, vodka puts my mouth in gear
I told Klobuchar I go to the bar, I said what she wanted to hear
I like beer!

#19 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-16 07:04 PM | Reply

Jennifer Rubin is an American neoconservative journalist who writes the "Right Turn" blog for The Washington Post.

#20 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-16 07:24 PM | Reply

"Jennifer Rubin is an American neoconservative journalist who writes the "Right Turn" blog for The Washington Post.
#20 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY "

No neocon should ever again be given a platform from which they can influence government policy. They should be shunned into silence. They are worse than the Branch Davidians.

#21 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The problem is the FBI was forced to do a sham investigation. In a real investigation, Stier would have been interviewed by the FBI and so would the woman. Since it is a crime to lie to the FBI, would they both have stuck to their stories? Could Stier have given the names of others with knowledge of the incident he said he remembers? It may be that the woman doesn't remember the event because it never happened, or because she was too drunk to remember it, or because she doesn't want to get involved at this late date after seeing what happened to Ford and Ramirez. Not wanting to talk to journalists is one thing and optional; not wanting to talk to the FBI is another kettle of fish entirely.

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:08 PM | Reply

The fact that the WH and Republican Senator pushed for a sham investigation makes me think they feared what a real investigation would uncover. Either way, they didn't do Kav any favors by preventing a real investigation from taking place. Sure, he got on the SC by the slimmest of margins, but there will always be an asterisks next to his name.

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:12 PM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

No, the fact is that the liar Blasey-Ford should have been charged with lying to the senate and she, and Fienstein should be in jail right now. Ford was a liar just like the trailer trash that CPL was parading around TV. We need to make lying during a confirmation hearing such a terrible punishment with certainty of being prosecuted that this NEVER happens again. Ford had multiple lies - the one about the polygraph has a signed affidavit from her ex-boyfriend on her coaching her friend how to pass one. The lie about the two doors - proven false by the timing of the building permit. The fear to fly proven by her multiple vacations flights. Ford SHOULD BE IN JAIL.

#24 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 09:19 PM | Reply

These allegations are over 30 years old. Even after being threatened with slander Leland Keyser refused to participate in a political hit job.

Ramirez was hammered. Her recollection of the event was admittedly fuzzy and she's not even sure if it was Kavanaugh. And all of this crap comes out AFTER the confirmation hearing was scheduled.

And heck, why not at this point? Julie Swetnick and her sleazy lawyer submitted testimony under the penalty of perjury that she walked back during a TV interview. She suffered zero consequences.

Blasey-Ford's lawyer ADMITTED (it's on tape) that trying to put an asterisk after Kavanaugh's name should abortion come before the court was a big motivating factor.

Stier said NOTHING when Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC court of appeals. Why?

If the MSM decides to keep this up as a major story and Kavanaugh continues to be slandered he should consider suing for defamation.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:22 PM | Reply

but there will always be an asterisks next to his name.

#23 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh*

*Victim of one of the nastiest and vicious political hit jobs in the history of the US.

I agree with you about the asterisk.

:-)

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:24 PM | Reply

*Victim of one of the nastiest and vicious political hit jobs in the history of the US.
#26 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

* The LAST victim of the #METOO movement.

The Democrats set back the cause for actual sexual assault victims a generation. Like like Jussie destroyed the Hate Crime narrative (which should have ended with Matthew Shepard if the media would ever tell the truth). You can't say we need to always believe the victim when your most high profile examples are proven hoaxes.

#27 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 09:27 PM | Reply

"Blasey-Ford's lawyer ADMITTED (it's on tape) that trying to put an asterisk after Kavanaugh's name should abortion come before the court was a big motivating factor."

Yes, a big factor in her coming forward before his SC nomination rather than his DC circuit nomination. Also, his DC circuit nomination occurred before the #MeToo movement, which empowered a lot of women to come forward with their experiences of sexual harassment and assault at the hands of high powered men.

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:27 PM | Reply

#24 Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:28 PM | Reply

Gal,

Why didn't Steir ever come forward before now?

He's not a #MeToo victim and he's a political foe of Kavanaugh.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:30 PM | Reply

"You can't say we need to always believe the victim when your most high profile examples are proven hoaxes."

That's the thing. Because the FBI didn't do a legit investigation, neither Ford nor Rameriz were proven to be hoaxes.

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

Ford nor Rameriz were proven to be hoaxes.

#31 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Because the FBI didn't do a legit investigation

There was nothing to investigate. Ford named 4 witnesses, all of whom denied any recollection of the party. She didn't know what day it was (she wasn't even certain of the year). She didn't recall which house it was. She didn't recall how she got there or how she got home. No eyewitnesses and nothing to zero in on because her lack of specifics make an investigation impossible.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:34 PM | Reply

"Why didn't Steir ever come forward before now?"

He came forward during the hearing. A number of Kav's Yale classmates did when they heard him testifying and learned about some of the allegations against him. Maybe Stier came forward when he did because that's when he realized he had relevant information to offer.

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:34 PM | Reply

"That's the thing. Because the FBI didn't do a legit investigation, neither Ford nor Rameriz were proven to be hoaxes.
#31 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

No - it is because the GOP is to ----------- to actually go after Ford for lying and throw her in jail. They should - I 100% welcome the investigation. We have 1 of 2 things and there is no middle ground. We either have a serial rapist on the USSC OR we have witnessed one of the most disgusting political attack in a coordinated attempt to overthrown our democratic institutions. Yes, investigate and charge one or the other. I have no issue with that - we have a process for removing a USSC justice so no reason NOT to do that now and as a result, no reason to not proceed with the confirmation as was done.

BTW - did you hear the latest on Ford's father telling Kavanaugh's father that he was happy Brett was confirmed? Strange given his daughter was raped by Kavanaugh.

Investigate - 100%. Investigate Ford, Kavanaugh, and Feinstein's office. Nothing to fear from the GOP perspective.

#34 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 09:36 PM | Reply

"That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused."

We are talking about an FBI investigation, not a court case. The FBI is well-equipped to chase down leads and determine which ones are credible and which ones are not.

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:36 PM | Reply

"The FBI is well-equipped to chase down leads and determine which ones are credible and which ones are not.
#35 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

Have you been sleeping the last 2 years? The FBI is a clown show.

#36 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 09:40 PM | Reply

Investigate Ford, Kavanaugh, and Feinstein's office. Nothing to fear from the GOP perspective.

#34 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

I actually agree with you. 6 Dem presidential candidates immediately called for impeachment after the NYT broke this story. Convene a Grand Jury and put these people - Kavanaugh, Ford, Ramirez, et al - under oath.

Either that, or take them to the kennel and sick the dogs on their asses. We'll find out for God Damn sure what they know and what they don't.

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

"We either have a serial rapist on the USSC"

Stop exaggerating. Neither Ford nor Rameriz accused Kav of rape. I do think Kav had a problem with alcohol in high school and college, and it's possible he did things when he was stinkin' drunk that he doesn't recall but that were sexually abusive/offensive. Plenty of his Yale classmates came forward to say that he did drink to excess and that he was lying when he claimed he never blacked out or never didn't remember what he'd done afterward. I think perjury should be a disqualification for being on the SC.

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:43 PM | Reply

take them to the kennel and sick the dogs on their asses

Look how worked up you are about this. It's pretty sick. I think you need to take a step back and examine yourself.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-16 09:43 PM | Reply

We have a serial rapist on the Supreme Court, to answer a question.

Investigate honestly this time, without the thumb of Donald Trump on the process.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 09:43 PM | Reply

"Strange given his daughter was raped by Kavanaugh."

She never claimed he raped her.

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:44 PM | Reply

Look how worked up you are about this. It's pretty sick. I think you need to take a step back and examine yourself.

#39 | POSTED BY JOE

I was quoting Pulp Fiction, Joe.

It wasn't a serious comment.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 09:45 PM | Reply

I start with the assumption everything Trump does is self- serving and corrupt, to include Judge Keg.

And, you know, I'm right.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 09:47 PM | Reply

"Convene a Grand Jury and put these people - Kavanaugh, Ford, Ramirez, et al - under oath.
#37 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "

100% agree. I would bet the stories disappear just like the CPL allegation disappeared. But, we need to prosecute to stop this from ever happening again. Along with those people, we need Feinstein under oath. For Ford, we have an affidavit from her ex that she coached her friend how to pass a polygraph - that should form the basis for the charging document as so specifically denied this. Start there, see where we end up.

#44 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 09:48 PM | Reply

"She didn't recall which house it was."

No, but she did give a description of the layout of the house. Did any of the people that she named have a house with that sort of layout? One rumor that was floated at the time was that one person had a grandparent whose house he hung out had a similar layout. Something like that would have been easy to check out.

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:50 PM | Reply

Did any of the people that she named have a house with that sort of layout?
#45 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

LOL. Are you serious now? Her entire story has ZERO underpinning facts and her named witnesses actively dispute it. However, if you can find any house in the DC metro fitting the description, she is telling the truth in your eyes? Wow. Just...wow.

#46 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 09:53 PM | Reply

This:

"Did any of the people that she named have a house with that sort of layout?"

is not the same as this:

"However, if you can find any house in the DC metro fitting the description, she is telling the truth in your eyes? Wow. Just...wow."

The only thing "Wow. Just....wow." here is what a fricken troll you are.

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 09:56 PM | Reply

Interesting idea, that someone can be coached to foil a polygraph.

BS.

What autonomic functions are comprehending the coaching?

#48 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 09:58 PM | Reply

Give the lie detector to Judge Keg. Coach him all you want. Kick yourselves out.

#49 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:00 PM | Reply

"Did any of the people that she named have a house with that sort of layout?"
#47 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

We already know that answer - NO. The media grab the permitting the docs already. So, that is why the hunt is for any house and then trying to justify the relationship of the house to someone involved - THEN claiming this incident took place there. It is ridiculous. She named 4 people - if her story had any credibility, one of them would have come forward by now with the house location at a minimum. I would rather spend the time seeing if her ex's affidavit is true - easy crime to prosecute. From there, we can get her talking about the rest of the story and who put her up to it.

#50 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:01 PM | Reply

Did any of the people that she named have a house with that sort of layout?

Yes. All this was known before the Senate's vote but again, no one formally investigated it.

Is This the Maryland House Where Christine Blasey Ford Was Allegedly Assaulted?

The home in Rockville, Maryland, where Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford 36 years ago has become the center of attention.

The possible site of the alleged attack belonged to Kavanaugh's high school friend, Timmy Gaudette.

Kavanaugh's own calendar contains what may be vital clues about the night Dr. Ford says she was attacked at the house.

The entry for July 1, 1982, says: "Go to Timmy's for skis with Judge, Tom, Pj, Bernie, Squi." "Skis" is believed to refer to brewskis.

Video at the link matching Dr. Ford's testimony with footage of the home's interior. As I've stated before, the most damning evidence of Kavanaugh's guilt resides in his own written words and oral testimony which confirms his activities and proclivities.

Goodnight Ira, go to sleep now. You've been knocked out.

#51 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Knock yourselves out. I love all you fierce warriors for your corrupt lord.

#52 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:01 PM | Reply

"Interesting idea, that someone can be coached to foil a polygraph.
#48 | POSTED BY ZED "

The fact that you don't know this exists is actually the least shocking sign of your stupidity.

#53 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:02 PM | Reply

I'm glad to bite. Tell us how to fox that mean old lie detector.

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:05 PM | Reply

Can you coach me to moderate the electrical flow in my skin?

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:06 PM | Reply

Better look up how polygraphs work PDQ.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:07 PM | Reply

Polygraphs area not admissible evidence.

#57 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-16 10:08 PM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY ZED

From an NSA whistleblower. Again - least surprising sign of your stupidity.

www.usnews.com

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

Of course polygraphs aren't admissible.

Be still, SHEEPLE is going to learn me a thing.

#59 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:11 PM | Reply

#51 Yeah, the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate not because there was nothing to investigate. Quite the contrary. The WH and Republicans in the Senate knew a legitimate investigation would uncover the truth. Remember when that lady lawyer the GOP hired to do the questioning of Ford and Kav started getting too close to the truth, and Lindsay Graham recognized that fact and flew into a dramatic schitt show at precisely the right moment to shutdown her line of questioning?

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#51

Clarification: The footage is NOT from Timmy's house, but from an identical house with the same floorplan.

As a matter of fact, I posted the WRONG LINK. The house in question belonged to Mark Judge's grandmother and was close to the country club where everyone had been. The alleged events happened BEFORE the party at Timmy's.

My house could be home of Kavanaugh party

It turns out that house was once the home of the grandparents of Mark Judge, the boy who Ford says was in the room with her when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. In 1982, Mark's grandmother Anita lived there alone after her husband, Joe, died from a heart attack while shovelling snow in the driveway. It was conceivable, the woman from ABC said, that when Judge was 17 in 1982 he used his grandmother's home to host the gathering. After all, it is only 2km from the Columbia Country Club where Ford says she was swimming that day before the party.

The party house was in "the Bethesda area" is all that Ford says of the location. Tick. It had a narrow staircase leading up to a bathroom with a bedroom off the side. Tick. An exit that would have required her to walk past those at the party. Tick. And a connection with Judge, and by extension, possibly Kavanaugh. Tick. Judge, 53, says no such party happened.

The woman from ABC News was intrigued by how the floorplan was consistent with Ford's description so she videoed the stairs, the bedroom and the bathroom before taking it back to her newsroom to compare it with other houses on the shortlist.

The point remains that there are suspect locations that fit Dr. Ford's recollections.

#61 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:12 PM | Reply

Hahahaha... "Joe, after a haircut"

HAHAHAHAHAHahaha!

#62 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-16 10:12 PM | Reply

Read the linked article. BS.

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:13 PM | Reply

"Mark Judge's grandmother"

I thought I remembered something about a grandmother. Forgot it was Mark Judge's though. Was he one of the witnesses the FBI interviewed?

#64 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:13 PM | Reply

#61 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Her description fits probably 10,000 houses in the DC metro. Her own friends state the incident never happened and you need to explain what happened to Grandma during this drunken party.

Again, I think the logical place to start is the affidavit stating Ford lied to the senate.

#65 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:15 PM | Reply

You wanna know why it's BS or you wanna Wally?

#66 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:16 PM | Reply

So, there are multiple houses in that, what was it, 5 square mile radius that share the same floor plan. One of Kavanaugh's calendar entries has him and two of the people Ford named as being present AND he also lists a couple of other names that Ford didn't mention AND Keyser's name is not on the entry. Yep, that absolutely proves everything happened exactly as Ford said it did. Yeah, I'm like totally convinced now. / snark

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:17 PM | Reply

"The WH and Republicans in the Senate knew a legitimate investigation would uncover the truth.
#60 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

Then why aren't you asking Ford to press charges now? The local police said they would investigate. If you can proven it now, no big deal in removing him from the USSC. So why aren't you pressuring lying Ford to do that now?

#68 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:18 PM | Reply

"The WH and Republicans in the Senate knew a legitimate investigation would uncover the truth.
#60 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

Then why aren't you asking Ford to press charges now? The local police said they would investigate. If you can proven it now, no big deal in removing him from the USSC. So why aren't you pressuring lying Ford to do that now?

#69 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:18 PM | Reply

Leave it to Wally to Wally out.

#70 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:18 PM | Reply

"Was he one of the witnesses the FBI interviewed?
#64 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

Yes, he was. Just like all the other alleged witnessed - he denied having any knowledge of it.

#71 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:19 PM | Reply

IRAWALLY

#72 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-16 10:19 PM | Reply

I thought I remembered something about a grandmother. Forgot it was Mark Judge's though. Was he one of the witnesses the FBI interviewed?

He was the recovering alcoholic that wrote a fictionalized book - Wasted - of their high school hijinks and introduced us to "Bart O'Kavanaugh" and his blackout drunkeness. Remember the 100 Keg Club?

#73 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:21 PM | Reply

If the GOP really believed Kav was innocent they would have allowed a free and full investigation of all the allegations if for no other reason than to clear his name, but they didn't allow that, which tells me they either knew or feared he wasn't innocent of at least some of the accusations made.

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:21 PM | Reply

Gal,

Democrats were trying to run out the clock. The allegations were so specious. I guarantee you this - had the FBI spent weeks Ford's claim and then Ramirez's, even if they would have come up empty (they would have) someone else would have come forward with allegations that were just as ridiculous (like Steir) and it would have gone on and on and on.

No way the GOP was going to reward those tactics. It wasn't a criminal trial nor was it a public trial. The Senators needed to use all of the information available to them to decide how to vote .

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:25 PM | Reply

Wow guys... could be... might be... no way to know....

That's why a thorough investigation might have answered these questions instead of us a year later making excuses and counter accusations blindly that NONE OF US CAN PROVE.

There are multiple investigative books about Kavanaugh's exploits that will be published in the near future.

We'll see just how quickly he files lawsuits against the authors and publishers that document many of the things we're now speculating about.

My guess is zero.

#76 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:25 PM | Reply

Wasn't Judge supposed to have been the other guy with Ford and Kav when Kav assaulted her? Hmmm. If he had admitted to the party, wouldn't he have been implicating himself?

#77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:26 PM | Reply

"If the GOP really believed Kav was innocent they would have allowed a free and full investigation of all the allegations if for no other reason than to clear his name,
#74 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

Nothing is stopping that investigation now - tell Ford to press charges.

#78 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:27 PM | Reply

"The allegations were so specious."

Nobody knows for sure either way, and that's the point.

#79 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:28 PM | Reply

"We'll see just how quickly he files lawsuits against the authors and publishers that document many of the things we're now speculating about.
#76 | POSTED BY TONYROMA"

As a public figure, he has not protection using libel/slander laws. The law should be changed. That said, I hope someone does investigate - Ford should be in jail along with Feinstein.

#80 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:29 PM | Reply

- if for no other reason than to clear his name
His name is already clear.

- but they didn't allow that
Nothing stopping Ford from pressing charges or sue him.

-which tells me they either knew or feared he wasn't innocent
All you do is speculate and peddle conjecture.

#81 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-16 10:30 PM | Reply

""The allegations were so specious."
Nobody knows for sure either way, and that's the point.
#79 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

No - we know for sure. That is why no charges have been filed despite the local police telling Ford to do so.

#82 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:30 PM | Reply

So, there are multiple houses in that, what was it, 5 square mile radius that share the same floor plan.

How many of them are connected to named friends of Brett Kavanaugh? (You know his yearbook is public, right? And that he names who he hangs out with right?)

The answer is very narrow.

Gee, somebody should investigate and found out!

#83 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:31 PM | Reply

Bottom line: I wanted all the witnesses who contacted the Senate and the FBI to be interviewed. Didn't happen and never will. Sham investigation, and as a result, questionable SC judge.

#84 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:31 PM | Reply

If he had admitted to the party, wouldn't he have been implicating himself? - #77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:26 PM
Implicated himself as someone who stopped a sexual assault?

#85 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 10:32 PM | Reply

"No - we know for sure. That is why no charges have been filed despite the local police telling Ford to do so."

This is bigger than Ford's allegation. Bigger than Ramirez's too. It's about whether a SC judge committed perjury during his Senate confirmation hearings and about to what extent the WH and the Republican Senate went to block a legitimate investigation in order to ram Kav's nomination through.

#86 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:34 PM | Reply

Democrats were trying to run out the clock. The allegations were so specious. I guarantee you this - had the FBI spent weeks Ford's claim and then Ramirez's, even if they would have come up empty (they would have) someone else would have come forward with allegations that were just as ridiculous (like Steir) and it would have gone on and on and on.
No way the GOP was going to reward those tactics. It wasn't a criminal trial nor was it a public trial. The Senators needed to use all of the information available to them to decide how to vote .

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-16 10:25 PM | REPLY

Oh quit your dishonest right winged hack job. The Republicans manipulated the investigation from jump street. It wasn't an independent honest investigation.

nymag.com

It's been two days since Senate Republicans and President Trump agreed to allow a limited, one-week-only FBI investigation into allegations of sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and "limited" has already become that investigation's defining feature. It's also not officially an investigation at all, but a background check, which means the FBI is working for the White House and following their instructions. Those instructions first of all set boundaries, and though Trump, the White House and GOP leaders can change what they ask from the FBI. There's a lot of confusion around what they will or won't allow. CNN reports that Senate Republicans and the White House are working to keep the investigation as narrow as possible, and so far that means excluding one of Kavanaugh's accusers, Julie Swetnick, and multiple people who might be able to corroborate the other allegations.

The list of interviewees can expand if the FBI wants to question more people, but to do so it will reportedly have to make requests to be approved by the White House, giving Trump and GOP leaders the power to strategically limit the investigation in order to protect Kavanaugh if they choose. With five days remaining in the arbitrary one-week timeframe demanded by Republicans, it's looking more and more likely that the investigation will be so limited as to be almost pointless " other than in giving a handful of Senate Republican skeptics enough cover to confirm Kavanaugh. The nominee is now "too big to fail," a Kavanaugh team member told Axios on Sunday, stating that the White House has no backup plan if his nomination gets sunk.

#87 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-16 10:34 PM | Reply

"I wanted all the witnesses who contacted the Senate and the FBI to be interviewed. Didn't happen and never will. Sham investigation, and as a result, questionable SC judge.
#84 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

Tell Ford. She can have that process start today. File charges. The local police asked you to do so.

#88 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:34 PM | Reply

Here is a an interesting take from a writer who has often been extremely critical of Trump:

Imagine for a moment that you're a lawyer investigating whether to take a case. Christine Blasey Ford has been in your office and told you a heart-rending tale of a high-school attack, but you do due diligence before taking a case, so you ask an associate to investigate. And when he does, what he finds does not support any single element of her story.

Not one of the witnesses she puts forward back her account. Her own friend says she doesn't have "any confidence" in Ford's story. Ford herself has offered differing accounts of her age at the time of the attack, and her therapist's notes contain a substantially different version of the story. She won't release the complete set of therapist's notes, and she won't release the complete results of a polygraph she took. She's scrubbed her social-media past, but she's apparently extremely partisan and seems to have an ideological motivation for coming forward " to help preserve Roe v. Wade.

Before I transitioned full-time to constitutional litigation, I worked on a number of sexual-harassment cases, including cases that included claims of sexual assault. I never saw " in court " a case as weak as Ford's. To simply say that there is "no corroborating evidence" overstates the strength of her claim. Virtually every single piece of additional evidence undercuts her case.

Deborah Ramirez's claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her is even weaker. At least Ford can present a clear narrative. Ramirez confessed to drinking heavily at the alleged event. She's confessed to memory gaps. She told friends that she wasn't sure Kavanaugh exposed himself, she wasn't comfortable coming forward until spending "six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney," and no one has even been able to independently confirm that Kavanaugh was at the alleged party. In fact, some of the alleged witnesses contradict Ramirez's story.

The Times essay claims that seven people "heard about" the alleged incident, but this is an extraordinarily vague claim. There is still no corroborating eyewitness testimony.

In the last 24 hours, I've seen a number of progressives marveling at the renewed conservative ferocity in defense of Kavanaugh. But where is the acknowledgment of the very substantial differences between the claims against Kavanaugh and virtually any other recent high-profile claim of sexual misconduct " either in the #MeToo era or before?

Claims against public figures such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, and many, many others feature a considerable amount of contemporaneous corroborating evidence. Other people will state that the victim specifically told them about the incident when it occurred. There will at least be evidence the accuser and accused were together at the date and times specified.


www.nationalreview.com

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:35 PM | Reply

Gee, somebody should investigate and found out! - #83 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:31 PM
Two investigative journalists just spent 10 months doing precisely that. How much time turning up no evidence to back the claims is enough for you? Will it ever be enough? What could just another couple of years,,,or decades... of investigation find out? I guess we'll never know because the Republicans don't want us to.

#90 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 10:35 PM | Reply

#86 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Yes - perjury was committed by Ford and Feinstein. That is serious and should be investigated. Why do you think Ford went silent immediately after her claims were rejected?

#91 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:35 PM | Reply

5 square mile radius

You can measure radius in square miles?

That's new.

#92 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-16 10:36 PM | Reply

Wasn't Judge supposed to have been the other guy with Ford and Kav when Kav assaulted her? Hmmm. If he had admitted to the party, wouldn't he have been implicating himself?

Yes, but Judge told investigators that he had no recollection of the events. Of course he didn't, they were likely stinking drunk like they usually were. Judge told stories of not just drinking but drinking to the point of blacking out.

Ford also told the story of seeing Judge again at the grocery store weeks after the alleged attack. He saw her and refused to even speak, looking down and away from her in what she described as shame. The key point is that this was her usual grocery store and she had no way of knowing that right after the weekend of the party, Judge went away somewhere for about the same time Ford recounted between having encountered him.

#93 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:37 PM | Reply

The FBI was NEVER going to put a lot of resources into 2 allegations that were anything remotely as weak as Ford's and Ramirez's.

That onus is now on investigative reporters and 2 from the NYT did just that and published a book.

I suggest you all pre-order copies of the book because this is what you claim you were clamoring for all along.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:37 PM | Reply

"Implicated himself as someone who stopped a sexual assault?"

I don't remember all the details. Something about he jumped on Kav and knocked him off of Ford, and she was able to escape? Did he actually say to Brett, "Stop! Don't do that!" Maybe he did, but I don't recall it.

#95 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:38 PM | Reply

It's about whether a SC judge committed perjury during his Senate confirmation hearings and about to what extent the WH and the Republican Senate went to block a legitimate investigation in order to ram Kav's nomination through. - #86 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:34 PM

If there were sufficient evidence of perjury by Kav, I have no doubt that the fine, honorable people on the House Judiciary Committee would do their duty to God and Country and make sure to press charges.
I'm sure they wouldn't delay and would do as their ethics demanded - as their morals required.
If there were sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
I wonder what they're waiting for?

#96 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 10:40 PM | Reply

Oh quit your dishonest right winged hack job. The Republicans manipulated the investigation from jump street. It wasn't an independent honest investigation.
nymag.com

#87 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Kavanaugh was more scrutinized than any SCOTUS nomination in history.

The Senators had everything they needed in order to cast an informed vote.

The only way criminal justice is going to pour any real resources into investigating claims that are this specious is if the alleged victims file charges.

That they refuse to do so speaks volumes. Want a criminal investigation? File charges. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

#97 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:41 PM | Reply

"Did he actually say to Brett, "Stop! Don't do that!" Maybe he did, but I don't recall it.
#95 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

No, he never said Stop! - because the entire event did not occur.

#98 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:41 PM | Reply

#95

I think it was more of a drunken boys thing again. Maybe somewhere in Judge's head he realized that Kav might be getting ready to possibly destroy his future, but my guess is that a drunk Judge decided to get in on the fun - just like roughhousing party boy best friends do - and jumped on top of Kav as he was trying to maneuver Ford which allowed her to escape.

#99 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:44 PM | Reply

"I guarantee you this - had the FBI spent weeks Ford's claim and then Ramirez's, even if they would have come up empty (they would have) someone else would have come forward with allegations that were just as ridiculous (like Steir) and it would have gone on and on and on."

You don't know that, and neither did the Republicans in the Senate. I truly believed they feared the worst, and that's why the circumscribed the investigation and rammed Kav's nomination through ASAP.

#100 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:44 PM | Reply

Yes, but Judge told investigators that he had no recollection of the events. - #93 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:37 PM

He did more than state that he had no recollection. He specifically denied that the event took place.
Judge stated in his letter to the SJC that he did not witness Kavanaugh behave as Dr. Ford claimed.

"I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes." qz.com

#101 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 10:45 PM | Reply

Kavanaugh was more scrutinized than any SCOTUS nomination in history.
The Senators had everything they needed in order to cast an informed vote.
The only way criminal justice is going to pour any real resources into investigating claims that are this specious is if the alleged victims file charges.
That they refuse to do so speaks volumes. Want a criminal investigation? File charges. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-16 10:41 PM | REPLY

You're absolutely full of it. We get it. You wanted Kavanaugh come hell or high water. You said as much at the time.

#102 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-16 10:48 PM | Reply

"Ford also told the story of seeing Judge again at the grocery store weeks after the alleged attack. He saw her and refused to even speak, looking down and away from her in what she described as shame. The key point is that this was her usual grocery store and she had no way of knowing that right after the weekend of the party, Judge went away somewhere for about the same time Ford recounted between having encountered him."

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. What I do remember is how credible Ford just about everybody thought Ford's testimony was. Kav, not so much.

#103 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:48 PM | Reply

"You can measure radius in square miles?
That's new.

#92 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2019-09-16 10:36 PM "

I wouldn't have worded it like that, but yes you can.

Using pi x radius squared, the radius of a circle with an area of 5 is app 1.26

#104 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-16 10:49 PM | Reply

There was nothing to investigate.

The allegations were so ridiculous and unsupported by evidence.

I can see how it all went down.

Boss: Are you agents aware of these allegations.

Agents: Yes, we're paid to be fully aware of them.

Boss: Well, I need you to look into them.

Agents: Is this a joke? This is a joke, right?

Boss: Nope. It's serious.

Agents: You've GOT to be kidding. What a colossal waste of time and resources.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:50 PM | Reply

"What I do remember is how credible Ford just about everybody thought Ford's testimony was"

Only to braindead liberals. You thought the same about Jussie - how did that turn out for you?

If you had any ability to self-reflect, you would not be making such stupid comments.

#106 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:51 PM | Reply

You wanted Kavanaugh come hell or high water. You said as much at the time. - #102 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-16 10:48 PM
That is a lie. I was the first and most vocal calling for Ford to press criminal charges. And I stated that I didn't really care for Kavanaugh. Any particular reason that honesty isn't working for you?

#107 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 10:51 PM | Reply

You're absolutely full of it. We get it. You wanted Kavanaugh come hell or high water. You said as much at the time.

#102 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I made a factual claim that I can back up (number of written questions he answered, number of documents he provided, etc).

But, we all know you aren't interested in facts so I'm not going to bother.

You cling to narratives these days and when they are provably wrong you double down.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:52 PM | Reply

Crap, Sorry Laura. That was targeted at Jeff. I was wrong and apologize.

#109 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 10:52 PM | Reply

Avigdore,

Laura's comment was directed at me, not you.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:52 PM | Reply

As a challenge to the liberals - can any of you now state that Jussie was LYING and that you were DUPED?

Any takers on owning up to past behaviors?

#111 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 10:53 PM | Reply

"I guarantee you this - had the FBI spent weeks Ford's claim and then Ramirez's, even if they would have come up empty (they would have) someone else would have come forward with allegations that were just as ridiculous (like Steir) and it would have gone on and on and on."

Yeah, LEO always determines what not to investigate based on what copycats might do... NOT! Investigators follow the evidence Jeff. If there is none, THEN they're finished, not before.

Do you listen to yourself these days? Kavanaugh lied under oath. He was a drunk, said he wasn't. Lied about Ralph Week. Lied about Renate. Lied about Devil's Triangle. Lied about not being a heavy drinker. Lied about not blacking out while drunk.

We don't need assault charges, I just want to see a group of his then-friends under oath answer questions about the very points I mentioned above.

#112 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:53 PM | Reply

I wish the House Judiciary Committee would look into why so many people who tried to contact the FBI or the Senate Judiciary committee never had their calls returned. If they were never contacted and interviewed, you really can't say it would have been a waste of time.

#113 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:54 PM | Reply

Crap, Sorry Laura. That was targeted at Jeff. I was wrong and apologize.

#109 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I've been posting here for 15 years. I can honestly say I've never seen Laura fess up to a mistake like you just did and apologize.

Maybe she has and I just don't recall it. Heck that is WAY more benefit of the doubt than she's ever given me, but that's not what this thread is about.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 10:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"As a challenge to the liberals - can any of you now state that Jussie was LYING and that you were DUPED?
Any takers on owning up to past behaviors?"

I never jumped on the Jussie train. Something seemed potential off to me. I felt the same about the witness Avenatti brought forward when I watched her interview on MSNBC.

#115 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:57 PM | Reply

Kavanaugh lied under oath. He was a drunk, said he wasn't. Lied about Ralph Week. Lied about Renate. Lied about Devil's Triangle. Lied about not being a heavy drinker. Lied about not blacking out while drunk. - #112 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 10:53 PM

That is untrue. Kavanaugh never claimed to have not been drunk.
What is your evidence that he lied about Ralph week?
What is your evidence that he lied about Renate?
Anyone who isn't ignorant of the issue knows that he didn't lie about Devil's Triangle.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
With nearly a year to gain some information you remain ignorant of the subject.
He never claimed to not be a heavy drinker. Why are you making false claims about it?
What is your evidence that he blacked out?

You've made allegations without evidence and you've made false claims. That's the kind of behavior that liars engage in, tonyroma.

#116 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 10:58 PM | Reply

"Only to braindead liberals. You thought the same about Jussie - how did that turn out for you?"

I didn't actually.

"If you had any ability to self-reflect, you would not be making such stupid comments."

Backatcha.

#117 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 10:59 PM | Reply

I never jumped on the Jussie train.
#115 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

You are one of the rare ones on the left - because it was nearly 100% believing him - from Robin Roberts on down the line. The sad thing his story had more corroboration that Ford - and he actually FILED CHARGES. Yet, total BS. I would hope you would apply the same scrutiny to Ford's documented lies.

#118 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 11:00 PM | Reply

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. What I do remember is how credible Ford just about everybody thought Ford's testimony was. Kav, not so much.

Some GOP senators concede Ford's credibility, but point to lack of corroboration

GOP senator calls Ford credible'

Trump Calls Christine Blasey Ford a Very Credible Witness'

It's impossible to have a rationale conversation with irrational people.

Do you really not understand how Google works? Were you asleep last year at this time and woke up brainwashed with delusions?

My gawd, it's embarrassing how willfully blind you are to the truth about undisputed, documented FACT.

#119 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:02 PM | Reply

"I've been posting here for 15 years. I can honestly say I've never seen Laura fess up to a mistake like you just did and apologize.
#114 | POSTED BY JEFFJ "

I've never seen it either. I'll never forget an incident back when she was a he and he argued with me that Senators have districts and that both senators do not represent the entire state. I proved him wrong with actual quotes from the Constitution and numerous web sites. Even after several other posters told him he was wrong (including democrats) he doubled down on the claim and said his ballot (it was right after an election) showed "senatorial districts.

You may remember that incident, Jeff. It was several years ago.

He never apologized for being wrong and just screeched "TROLL!" rather than admit his mistake and ignorance of basic civics. He plonked me right after that because he claimed I was trolling. LOL

#120 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-16 11:03 PM | Reply

He was a drunk, said he wasn't

He admitted to drinking beer in HS and college and sometimes to excess. So, you are 0 for 1.

Lied about Ralph Week.

I don't recall that one, so I can't comment either way.

Lied about Renate.

His friends say that his description was apt.

Lied about Devil's Triangle.

You are basing that on an Urban Dictionary definition that didn't even exist when he was in HS. You have no way of knowing what slang terms meant to his social circle at that time.

Lied about not being a heavy drinker.

Already addressed.

Lied about not blacking out while drunk

You have no way of knowing whether he's lying about that or not. Absolutely no way of knowing.

We don't need assault charges

I know. You want your cake and want to be able to eat it too.

I just want to see a group of his then-friends under oath answer questions about the very points I mentioned above.

You want his friends under oath to answer whether or not they played drinking games and if one of said games was called Devil's Triangle?

Seriously? Remove your partisan-colored glasses and think for a moment just how ridiculous that is.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-16 11:03 PM | Reply

#119 was in response to Jeff and Ira delusionally claiming that no one believed Dr. Ford's testimony was credible, not an indictment of Gal's comment.

I forgot to add Ira's derisive retort.

#122 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:04 PM | Reply

I never jumped on the Jussie train. Something seemed potential off to me. I felt the same about the witness Avenatti brought forward when I watched her interview on MSNBC.

#115 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

You're guilty of supporting the circus freak show that manufactures all of this nonsense 24/7.

Some of it sticks, some of it stinks. you don't really care, nor do you speak out against it.

No, you and TonyDumbo just sift through it all and select the juiciest turdballs to polish.

#123 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-16 11:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#119 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Of course they said she seemed credible to reporters - this was the height of #METOO and they didn't want to seem like they were questioning a "victim's" story - which is why they had the lady come in and do the questioning on their behalf. This is their public face. If they honestly believed he was a rapist, they would not have confirmed him. You trying to use this as 'proof' of their actual feelings is laughable.

#124 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 11:07 PM | Reply

Seriously?

Asking questions is partisan? Go screw yourself.

Asking questions is the ONLY WAY TO GET ANSWERS! Since all I want is to find out the truth, if indeed his friends say that Brett's answers were right, I'd accept it immediately.

Your opinion though is as worthless as mine in actually putting the issues to bed.

Good lord, it's partisan to ask Republican questions. WTF!?!

#125 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:07 PM | Reply

-119 was in response to Jeff and Ira delusionally claiming that no one believed Dr. Ford's testimony was credible, not an indictment of Gal's comment.

With very few exceptions, fords credibility fell along ideological lines

IOW, little objectivity was applied.

Why is this still being argued?

#126 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-16 11:08 PM | Reply

"Lied about not blacking out while drunk.
You have no way of knowing whether he's lying about that or not. Absolutely no way of knowing."

Apparently that's what a bunch of people who knew Kav at Yale were calling into the FBI about. They knew he was lying because they had seen him get drunk and pass out. A number of them went on TV and said as much and were willing to tell the FBI the same. I'm pretty sure that's one reason why the FBI never called people back. "You can't handle the truth!"

#127 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Asking questions is partisan?

You want your suspicions confirmed.

So yes....it's partisan in your case.

#128 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-16 11:10 PM | Reply

"If they honestly believed he was a rapist, they would not have confirmed him."

Ford didn't claim he was a rapist. Neither did Ramirez.

#129 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:10 PM | Reply

#124

You don't have to invent reasons Ira, they're quoted in the story.

So now your mindreading is the REAL truth and what Trump and other Republicans said publicly was just pc blather.

They qualified their statements by saying that Ford was credible but lacked corroboration, which at that point was true.

Stick to what is reported, though I don't disagree that they were lying. It's the coin of the realm in the GOP. Thanks for confirming it.

#130 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:11 PM | Reply

--Why is this still being argued?

Best question on this thread. Just pointless sound and fury...

#131 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-16 11:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

With very few exceptions

TRUMP said she was credible at first.

"I thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me, very fine woman," Trump said of Ford while speaking to reporters on Friday. "It was an incredible moment I think in the history of our country," he continued. "But certainly [Ford] was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects."

fortune.com

The GOP takes their orders from the front, not the back.

#132 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:14 PM | Reply

"You're guilty of supporting the circus freak show that manufactures all of this nonsense 24/7.
Some of it sticks, some of it stinks. you don't really care, nor do you speak out against it.
No, you and TonyDumbo just sift through it all and select the juiciest turdballs to polish."

Not true. I have spoken out about what I feel are the excesses of the #MeToo movement, but I don't expect you to acknowledge that. The only turd and ball polisher here is you.

Maybe all the allegations against Kav were bogus. A real investigation would have revealed that, but the FBI weren't allowed to conduct one. Why?

#133 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:16 PM | Reply

They knew he was lying because they had seen him get drunk and pass out. A number of them went on TV and said as much and were willing to tell the FBI the same. - #127 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:
Citation?
All I've seen them say is the roommate, Roche, claiming that how felt that Kav had been 'what he considered' blackout drunk. Although he never states that Kav passed out or was unable to remember any events that had transpired (memory loss being the actual definition, not what Roche considered).
www.cnn.com
Unfortunately coming home stumbling drunk and vomiting, which is what Roche considers to be blackout drunk, isn't actually what blackout drunk means.
So, any citation of someone actually claiming that Kav couldn't remember what had transpired while he was drunk?

"A blackout involves memory loss due to alcohol or drug abuse."https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcoholism-treatment/blackout

#134 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 11:16 PM | Reply

Maybe all the allegations against Kav were bogus. A real investigation would have revealed that, but the FBI weren't allowed to conduct one. Why? - #133 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:16 PM
Because this country doesn't make people prove their innocence. How many times do we have to repeat that?

#135 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 11:17 PM | Reply

#135 - that's absolutely not true and a conflation of terms and processes that are unrelated.

How many times does it have to be explained?

#136 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:21 PM | Reply

#127

We're as bad as the DNC with identifying the most important fact patterns.

The reason people came out with accusations during his hearings was that based on their own experiences with Kavanaugh decades ago they knew he was lying and THAT compelled them to come forward. Not partisan politics but the simple realization that they knew through his testimony that Kavanaugh was an unrepentant liar unfit for the hallowed position he was nominated for.

We've said it once, and we'll say it forever: Trump could have nominated anyone on his Federalist Society VIJ list and they wouldn't have faced what Kavanaugh did. Gorsuch didn't. The problem was Kavanaugh's checkered past and his unwillingness to simple say there were youthful indiscretions that he's sorry for today. That's all he needed to do.

#137 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:23 PM | Reply

#135 - that's absolutely not true and a conflation of terms and processes that are unrelated. How many times does it have to be explained? - #136 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:21 PM
Lets start with 1. In what case must someone prove their innocence?

#138 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 11:25 PM | Reply

#137 - and he proved that in the hearing. The most unfit candidate based on his theatrics and arrogance I've ever seen nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States.

#139 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:25 PM | Reply

Kavanaugh's Yale classmates who dispute his statements on drinking and sexual misconduct want to talk to the FBI but are reportedly being ignored

www.businessinsider.com

Three Yale Classmates of Brett Kavanaugh Say He Lied Under Oath About His Drinking and Behavior

www.towleroad.com

A Republican Yale drinking buddy of Kavanaugh's tells CNN he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee

theweek.com

#140 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:26 PM | Reply

The problem was Kavanaugh's checkered past and his unwillingness to simple say there were youthful indiscretions that he's sorry for today. That's all he needed to do. - #137 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:23 PM
So if Kavanaugh had lied, admitted to something he didn't do, and said he'd done it as a youthful indiscretion....that would be the right choice for SCJ?
Your morals aren't on straight.

#141 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 11:27 PM | Reply

"The most unfit candidate based on his theatrics and arrogance I've ever seen nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States.
#139 | POSTED BY YAV"

What makes a USSC justice unfit is ignorance and bias - in that regards, the trio of Libturds on the court today take the cake.

#142 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 11:29 PM | Reply

#138 - I've posted this many times before.
This was NOT a criminal hearing.
This was NOT a civil law hearing.
This was an interview for a lifetime position on the highest Court of the land.
There is no determination of guilt or innocence that would result in a penalty, other than not getting the job.
There is no requirement of "innocent until proven guilt."

The only time your proposition has any weight is if those that are doing the deciding wish to use as a criteria. There is no legal constraint since this isn't a legal proceeding.

#143 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:31 PM | Reply

What he can't do is lie during the hearing - that's a felony.

#144 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:31 PM | Reply

#143 | POSTED BY YAV

Innocent until proven guilty is a guiding point in the legal system, but also in society. Shame that you limit so much. Twisting this around leads directly to discrimination on racial and ethnic lines.

#145 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 11:33 PM | Reply

What he can't do is lie during the hearing - that's a felony.

POSTED BY YAV AT 2019-09-16 11:31 PM | REPLY

Right wingers don't care. They've proven it repeatedly.

#146 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-16 11:33 PM | Reply

#144 | POSTED BY YAV

Ford lied - no charges.

Feinstein lied - no charges.

James Clapper did - no charges.

Literally, you can say whatever you want to the senate without charges so long as you are a Democrat.

#147 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 11:34 PM | Reply

#140

Gal, SHHHHH!!!!

Jeff said there are no witnesses and he knows all! The people in your links probably have answers that investigators don't want to hear. Brett's word is all we need. Who wants to hear this?

"I'll tell you, Chris, I watched the whole hearing, and a number of my Yale colleagues and I were extremely disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh's characterization of himself and the way that he evaded his excessive drinking question" and "was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today," Brookes said. "There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember." She said she can "almost guarantee" he doesn't remember a night she witnessed where he was "stumbling drunk, in a ridiculous costume, saying really dumb things" to pledge a fraternity.
My gosh, what a rabid partisan, drunk on Clinton kool-aide this person is.

There oughta be a law....

#148 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-16 11:34 PM | Reply

#145 -
Go to what was said that I responded to, then figure it out. If you can.
That way you might not look like that idiot that posted #142.

#149 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:36 PM | Reply

#147 - all you do is lie, so being a massive hypocrite and directly going against what you said in #145 doesn't surprise me, Ira.

We're done, by the way. You've shown yourself to be a joke. G'night.

#150 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:37 PM | Reply

If Obama had nominated Kavanaugh Jeff would have been on him like stink on schit and you know it too.

#151 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-16 11:38 PM | Reply

#151 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Which is why the unqualified Obama turds are on the bench now? The senate confirmation is a rubber stamp until the Left gets hyper partisan as they know the only way of forcing through their agenda is by abusing the legal system.

#152 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 11:41 PM | Reply

@GAL:
Your article:
www.towleroad.com a Yale roommate does claim that Kav blacked out. Unfortunately we don't know what this fellows basis is for that claim. Is his version of 'blacking out' the same as the other Yale student, Roche? Perhaps he has some evidence to back it up? Hell, Tonyroma claimed that Kav lied. Tony just happened to not have any evidence to back up his claim. Thinking that Kav blacked out, and being able to prove that Kav lied are two similar, yet unequal things. I'm more than happy to hear any more of the fellows story as to what led him to believe that he knows that there are gaps in Kavs memory that Kav claims aren't there. It would make for an enjoyable listen.
Also, these people continue to claim that Kav lied because he downplayed his drinking. 1) That's not a lie 2) Did they watch the same testimony as the rest of America? Kav didn't downplay his drinking at all. He was rather boastful of it. Pretending that Judge 'I Like Beer' Kavanaugh downplayed his drinking is just not an actual representation of what happened.

Your article theweek.com says that Kav lied because he claimed that he didn't drink to excess during his Fox interview.
The problem with that, is that Kav never made that claim. He never said in his interview that he didn't drink to excess. All he stated was that he never blacked out. How amazing to claim that Kav lied about something that Kav never said. Full transcript of the interview where Kav never claimed that he didn't drink to excess: www.usatoday.com
She backs that up with an 'almost guarantee' that Kav had blacked out. Well...an almost guarantee...wow. Almost. Hell, I bet Kav almost lied.

Your first link is a collection of the same people as those 2 above. If they had the same stuff to share with the FBI...I can almost guarantee you that they'd be rightfully ignored.

#153 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 11:43 PM | Reply

Not everyone who knew Kav to be a heavy drinker at Yale, because some of them drank with him, said he drank until he passed out. Some said that he drank to excess and to the point they believed he wouldn't have remembered the next day. I think he didn't want to admit that because it would have opened the door to the possibility that he had attacked Ford and simply didn't remember it afterwards. The same could be said of the other person Ford claimed was in the room, Judge. They were both heavy drinkers in high school and beyond.

#154 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:45 PM | Reply

he proved that in the hearing. The most unfit candidate based on his theatrics and arrogance I've ever seen nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States. - #139 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:25 PM
More Senators disagree with your assessment than agree with it. Let's hear it for Democracy, am I right? The constitution puts the duty into the state's representatives to consent or not. They consented.

#155 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 11:46 PM | Reply

"I think he didn't want to admit that because it would have opened the door to the possibility that he had attacked Ford and simply didn't remember it afterwards.
#154 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

Of course that is the reason. However, as the only one that knows if he blacked out is Kavanaugh - it is a statement that can't be proven.

#156 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-16 11:48 PM | Reply

#154 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:45 PM
That he was an admitted heavy drinker is not in question. The claim was not about him being a heavy drinker. The claim, without evidence, remains that he was a black out drunk and lied about it. Proving that he was a heavy drinker, which he admitted to, is not evidence that he blacked out. Just like pointing out that someone is a heavy drinker doesn't prove that they drank and drove. They are different things.

#157 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 11:49 PM | Reply

#143 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:31 PM
Ok, I get what you're saying. So then the answer to the original question:
Maybe all the allegations against Kav were bogus. A real investigation would have revealed that, but the FBI weren't allowed to conduct one. Why?
should have merely been:
Because the Senate already had all of the information they needed to determine if they consented to the President's choice for SCJ.
That was even more simple, really.

#158 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-16 11:53 PM | Reply

#158 -
So close. Ignoratio elenchi.

#159 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:58 PM | Reply

In part of that weird exchange he had with Amy Klobuchar, I think Kav told the truth here "I don't know":

KLOBUCHAR: So you're saying there's never been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.

KAVANAUGH: It's--you're asking about, you know, blackout. I don't know. Have you?

www.washingtonpost.com

#160 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-16 11:58 PM | Reply

#154 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Your entire post is speculation resulting in pre-drawn conclusions.

You're a gossip and society whisperer.

#161 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-17 12:00 AM | Reply

So close. Ignoratio elenchi. - #159 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-16 11:58 PM
Interesting not-sequitur considering that I'm not refuting anything, only answering a question.

#162 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 12:01 AM | Reply

- you're asking about, you know, blackout. I don't know.

So what? you automatically assume blackout therefore sexual assault.

And yet you twist yourself into knots to defend Al Franken.

#163 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-17 12:03 AM | Reply

#160 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Again, it cannot be proven either way. If I go out drinking, there are things I don't remember because, they aren't memorable, because I was not being observant at the time, I was tired, and sometime because I drank too much. No way to prove it was because of the alcohol - which would define blackout - so what is the point of proving he drank a lot? You are just trying to smear his character so you can hurl false rape accusations.

#164 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 12:04 AM | Reply

#162 - Hm.
How to explain this. This is well done and fun:
www.youtube.com

#165 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 12:08 AM | Reply

#160 - is that the series where he finally opts out for "whatever's on the chart" - which then, when pressed, he agrees that it's the "legal limit" - or was that under Harris he did that? That was so against what he'd said earlier about his drinking. I remember it and thinking "he just ontradicted himsel. That guy's lying!"

#166 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 12:11 AM | Reply

@#165 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 12:08 AM
So I watched. I disagree that my conclusion as to why the FBI was not allowed to investigate further, the Senate had the information that they needed to make their determination, is invalid.
Would you care to try to explain why you think that it is?

#167 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 12:12 AM | Reply

"So what? you automatically assume blackout therefore sexual assault."

Not at all. We were talking about his drinking. I think he told the truth there: he didn't know if he had ever blacked out from drinking.

#168 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:14 AM | Reply

"You are just trying to smear his character so you can hurl false rape accusations."

Ford did not accuse him of rape. Neither did Rameriz.

#169 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:15 AM | Reply

Would someone always know if they had blacked out from drinking or might they think they had just fallen asleep?

#170 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:17 AM | Reply

Also, blacking out from drinking isn't the only way someone might not remember what they did when they were drunk, is it?

#171 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:19 AM | Reply

Would someone always know if they had blacked out from drinking or might they think they had just fallen asleep?
#170 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Can't be proven either way, like I already wrote - so your question has no point other than to prove that he did not provably lie during the confirmation hearing. So, thanks for supporting Brett with that argument.

#172 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 12:20 AM | Reply

Also, blacking out from drinking isn't the only way someone might not remember what they did when they were drunk, is it?
#171 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Go read #164, already laid that you for you slow-Joe.

#173 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 12:21 AM | Reply

. We were talking about his drinking. I think he told the truth there: he didn't know if he had ever blacked out from drinking. - #168 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:14 AM
He did state that during the summer that Dr. Ford referenced that he didn't drink to the point of blacking out. Evidently he did drink greater amounts at some point after that as indicated in his statement to Klobuchar. Page 16ish of this
www.judiciary.senate.gov(Redacted).pdf

#174 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 12:24 AM | Reply

"154 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY
Your entire post is speculation resulting in pre-drawn conclusions.
You're a gossip and society whisperer."

This is what people who knew him said. You can call it gossip, but they probably think of it as telling the truth:

"Not everyone who knew Kav to be a heavy drinker at Yale, because some of them drank with him, said he drank until he passed out. Some said that he drank to excess and to the point they believed he wouldn't have remembered the next day."

This is speculation on my part:

"I think he didn't want to admit that because it would have opened the door to the possibility that he had attacked Ford and simply didn't remember it afterwards. The same could be said of the other person Ford claimed was in the room, Judge."

This they both admitted to:

They were both heavy drinkers in high school and beyond.
#154 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

#175 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:25 AM | Reply

In this transcript: www.judiciary.senate.gov(Redacted)..pdf someone falsely claims that Kavanaugh denied ever being blackout drunk. Kavanaugh didn't make that claim. But he did answer no to this:
Would anything about your college drinking in any way impair your ability to remember whether you engaged in the conduct Ms. Ramirez identifies?

#176 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 12:27 AM | Reply

Also, blacking out from drinking isn't the only way someone might not remember what they did when they were drunk, is it?
#171 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY
Go read #164, already laid that you for you slow-Joe.

No, what I meant was you don't have to drink to the point of blacking out for drinking to impair your memory. Drinking excessively is likely to impair your ability to remember even if you don't go so far as to blackout.

#177 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:31 AM | Reply

Ok, heading to bed. Gotta be on the ship early in the morning.

#178 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 12:32 AM | Reply

So much has been forgotten and misrepresented:

BOOKER: ... So she [Ford] was not " she was not doing this for a political effort in 2012 when talked to her therapist about this attack. She was not coordinating about this painful " when she made " painful experience when she made revelations to her husband.

She did coordinate in 2013, '16, 2017, before you were even nominated when she revealed that it was you " with three different people " that had sexually assaulted her. That wasn't coordination. And (inaudible) ...

KAVANAUGH: All the witnesses who were there say it didn't happen. Ms. Keyser's her longtime friend, said she never saw me at a party with or without Dr. Ford ...

BOOKER: Sir-sir, and Ms. Keyser has said clearly, and I will quote what she said, she said she does not remember the night in question that " that " that supports what you said. But she also says that she believes Dr. Ford.

#179 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:37 AM | Reply

Drinking excessively is likely to impair your ability to remember even if you don't go so far as to blackout.
#177 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Yep, so again, nice job of proving he didn't lie during the hearing. Now we can move onto the liars Ford and Feinstein.

#180 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 12:37 AM | Reply

I cannot believe how circular this whole thing has become since I went for my evening stroll.

Kav admitted to drinking beer in HS and college and admitted to, on occasion, drinking to excess.

Much of the rest of this is quibbling over how one subjectively describes 'drinking to excess'.

How does a teenager partying with alcohol whilst in High School and college (many will admit to this and I fall into this category) make him unqualified to be on the court, especially given the totality of exculpatory evidence in his favor? And let's be brutally honest, his bona fide and well-documented treatment of women as an adult is exponentially-stronger than 2 specious allegations that haven't - it's impossible given the vagueness of the allegations - been 100% debunked.

Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick. This is lunacy.

#181 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 12:42 AM | Reply

"Yep, so again, nice job of proving he didn't lie during the hearing."

Maybe, he is a smart lawyer who was coached by numerous smart lawyers. That doesn't meant he told the truth either.

#182 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:46 AM | Reply

#181 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You are missing the liberal logic - they want to focus on the 'black-out' for 2 reasons:

1.) To say that he lied during the hearing - so they can impeach him
2.) To say that he raped Ford but just blacked out so he can't remember it

That is the reason for the arguments. As I pointed out, it is impossible to prove that he lied about blacking out - so they are stuck just trying to do more character assassination.

#183 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 12:46 AM | Reply

#182 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

It means you can't prove he lied.

So, you have nothing absent Ford pressing charges - and we both know that will NEVER happen or she would be Jussie 2.0.

#184 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 12:47 AM | Reply

Ford said Kav was drunk, not that he blackout on top of her and that's what enabled her to escape!

#185 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:53 AM | Reply

Maybe, he is a smart lawyer who was coached by numerous smart lawyers. That doesn't meant he told the truth either.

#182 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

OK. Based upon what is publicly-known, make a case.

If said case is based upon the allegations of Ford and Ramirez it disappears almost instantaneously by any evidentiary legal standard.

So, we are left with This NYT piece as the standard-bearer and the first tease was already obliterated for failing to disclose a crucial element of the newest allegation - by a political foe - that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed but friends stated she has no recollection of the alleged incident.

It's amazing how the burden of proof has become 'guilty until proven innocent' when it comes to left-wing political targets.

#186 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 12:54 AM | Reply

"It means you can't prove he lied."

If no one could prove he lied about anything, the WH shouldn't curtailed the investigation.

#187 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:55 AM | Reply

"It's amazing how the burden of proof has become 'guilty until proven innocent' when it comes to left-wing political targets."

My standard is the same: conduct a legitimate investigation. By FBI in this case, by Senate ethics committee in Franken's case. Maybe Kav would have been exonerated, and Franken wouldn't have.

#188 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-09-17 12:59 AM | Reply

"Ford said Kav was drunk, not that he blackout on top of her and that's what enabled her to escape!
#185 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

Libs are the ones playing the blackout card because they didn't have the balls to call him a lying rapist to his face - it is a nice 'mitigating' circumstance like temporary insanity. That is why they are claiming he isn't a liar when he says it didn't happen - he was black-out drunk. Sorry, you games don't fly here.

#189 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 12:59 AM | Reply

"If no one could prove he lied about anything, the WH shouldn't curtailed the investigation.
#187 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

When the outcome is already known, there is no point in trying to prove a negative - the Mueller Report should have taught you that. No point playing make-believe to make the Liberals happy - they will whine regardless.

#190 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 01:01 AM | Reply

"My standard is the same: conduct a legitimate investigation.
#188 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

They already did - they asked the witnesses. They tried to accumulate evidence from the accuser and she did not want to cooperate or file charges. The investigation happened and you just don't like the outcome - like the Mueller Report.

#191 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 01:02 AM | Reply

If no one could prove he lied about anything, the WH shouldn't curtailed the investigation.

#187 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

There was nothing to curtail.

Please, just read this:

he Times essay claims that seven people "heard about" the alleged incident, but this is an extraordinarily vague claim. There is still no corroborating eyewitness testimony.

In the last 24 hours, I've seen a number of progressives marveling at the renewed conservative ferocity in defense of Kavanaugh. But where is the acknowledgment of the very substantial differences between the claims against Kavanaugh and virtually any other recent high-profile claim of sexual misconduct " either in the #MeToo era or before?

Claims against public figures such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, and many, many others feature a considerable amount of contemporaneous corroborating evidence. Other people will state that the victim specifically told them about the incident when it occurred. There will at least be evidence the accuser and accused were together at the date and times specified.

It's important to remember that #BelieveWomen is a slogan, not an evidentiary standard. We should hear all accusers and carefully consider their claims. But before we judge claims "credible," shouldn't there be at least some meaningful supporting evidence? And is a word such as "credible" appropriate when the available additional evidence fundamentally contradicts the accusations?

185
In the first moments after the Washington Post reported Ford's claims, I suggested a concrete evidentiary standard should apply. Kavanaugh should not serve on the Supreme Court if it was "likely" he committed sexual assault. Yet the initial report was the high-water mark of Ford's claims. It grew more shaky as time passed, and now it's shakier still. Ramirez's claims never met a threshold of credibility " especially when she herself allegedly told friends she wasn't sure Kavanaugh had done what she claimed.


www.nationalreview.com

What are your thoughts about the points this writer raises?

The allegations against Bill Clinton, Roy Moore and Donald Trump pass a far HIGHER evidentiary bar than the claims against Kavanaugh.

#192 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 01:04 AM | Reply

But the real question is 'Why Now?' My bet is that the Dems know one of their libs is stepping down prior to the election. Better hope it is RBG and not Breyer as Trump will get RBG's seat in his next term regardless. If he picks up Breyer's before the election and then RGB's - even the wishy-washy Roberts won't be able to stop the return of Constitutional law.

#193 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-17 01:04 AM | Reply

For those wanting a thorough investigation of the sexual allegations against Kavanaugh - you got your wish. That's exactlyy what this book that is being sold purports itself to be.

Buy it. Read it. And make case from there.

Based upon what was selectively released...good luck! But hope springs forever eternal.

#194 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 01:12 AM | Reply

There was nothing to investigate.
The allegations were so ridiculous and unsupported by evidence.

You conduct an investigation to find evidence.

Good lord, you people really are morons.

#195 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 03:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As has been stated numerous times, this is not a criminal investigation It was a job interview. The decision makers gathered as much information as they felt they needed to reach their decision about Kavanaugh getting a job.
He got the job.
If you want to further investigate, nobody is stopping you. Have fun. Go to town. Investigate away. The job interview is done and a criminal case is just waiting. Gather your evidence and make your case. The burden of proof is on you. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Let us all know when you've approached that standard.

#196 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 07:16 AM | Reply

The decision makers gathered as much information as they felt they needed to reach their decision about Kavanaugh getting a job.

Wrong. Again.

He got the job.

Correct.

#197 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 07:23 AM | Reply

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wrong.

#198 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 07:23 AM | Reply

Yav,

Everything Avigdore said was correct.

No amount of scrutiny was ever going to be enough for Democrats because of what took place with Garland.

The antics with Kavanaugh was nothing more than political retribution.

Focus on 2020 and replace Ginsburg (she's near retirement) with the biggest left-wing judicial hack Dems can find and find one who is in his/her 40's.

#199 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 07:33 AM | Reply

Focus on 2020 and replace Ginsburg (she's near retirement) with the biggest left-wing judicial hack Dems can find...

Highly unlikely the Democrats will take the Senate.

#200 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-17 07:36 AM | Reply

Everything Avigdore said was correct.

No, Jeff. It wasn't. That's ridiculous and a premise you hold on to to rationalize this mess.

This is what Trump and the GOP wrought. You didn't allow Garland any time, at all, and you did everything you could to short-circuit the FBI investigation. Now you have another Supreme Court Justice with an asterisk by his name.

#201 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 07:55 AM | Reply

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Wrong. - #198 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 07:23 AM
No, not wrong. The standard THEN, during the job interview, was not reasonable doubt. I conceded your point about that above.
That time has passed.
The standard NOW is precisely that for any criminal complaint.
Argue it if you'd like, I'm willing to have a discussion, but you're false claims of 'wrong' are just stupid silly.

#202 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 08:07 AM | Reply

you're? Bleh. Your.

#203 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 08:20 AM | Reply

This is impeachment, not a trial with a criminal finding.
It's not my point.
You're confusing a political system with the legal system, and putting constraints on it as a result.
I'm not unsympathetic to your wish, I'm just stating that the impeachment of a Judge, like the impeachment of a President is not constrained the way you wish it was.

#204 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 08:23 AM | Reply

you're? Bleh. Your.

I hate when I do that, too. :)

#205 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 08:23 AM | Reply

This is impeachment, not a trial with a criminal finding. - #204 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 08:23 AM
Perhaps reading my statements in full instead of pulling out parts and finding fault with what they say in isolation would serve you well.

The job interview is done and a criminal case is just waiting. Gather your evidence and make your case. The burden of proof is on you. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Let us all know when you've approached that standard.

#206 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 08:32 AM | Reply

Got it, Avigdore, however who is talking about a criminal case?
This is all about Kav being impeached.
is separate from any criminal proceding.
Impeachment is the core point of the article.

#207 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 08:42 AM | Reply

200 posts relitigating the Kavanaugh affair a year later.

Good lord, you people really are morons.

#208 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 08:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Got it, Avigdore, however who is talking about a criminal case?
This is all about Kav being impeached.
is separate from any criminal proceding.
Impeachment is the core point of the article.
#207 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 08:42 AM

I am. You could tell by the part where I was talking about a criminal case.
The article admits that an impeachment isn't happening. I admit an impeachment isn't happening. Do you admit that an impeachment isn't happening?
Knowing that the job interview is over, and he is not being removed by impeachment, what avenues remain open for justice?
The simplest way to have trained investigators seeking evidence is a criminal case. The bar for evidence in a criminal case being....discussed above several times.

#209 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 08:59 AM | Reply

WaPo: calls-impeach-kavanaugh-are-latest-example-hollow-hyperpartisanship
www.washingtonpost.com

#210 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 09:13 AM | Reply

This whole debacle is because RBG is getting older and sicker. The left is squirming over the idea of yet another sensible Conservative on the SC.

#211 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-09-17 10:30 AM | Reply

The whole debacle was brought on by Moscow Mitch and Merrick Garland.

#212 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 10:41 AM | Reply

The whole debacle was brought on by Moscow Mitch and Merrick Garland.

#212 | POSTED BY YAV

Correct. At the end of the day, this is really what it's all about.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If Trump wins 2020 but the GOP loses the Senate and shortly thereafter Ginsburg retires, this is what I expect will happen:

Schumer will waltz into Trump's office carrying a sheet of paper. He'll slam that paper on Trump's desk and will say, "Here's a list of justices we will consider for the seat vacated by RBG. If you nominate anyone who is not on this list they will receive the Garland treatment." Schumer then turns around and walks out.

If this is what happens you will not hear a peep of criticism from me. Even if that seat is held open until after Trump's term expires, I won't castigate the Democrats. This will simply be what would logically follow McConnell's Garland gambit.

By all means, Hans this post if you think I'm lying about how I'll react to the hypothetical I just laid out.

#213 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 10:52 AM | Reply

The whole debacle began with the states agreeing to a constitution that requires the president's nominations only be seated with the consent of the state's representatives.

#214 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-17 10:55 AM | Reply

#213 - you don't need me to do that, but I'll have your back on that, Jeff :)

#215 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-17 11:23 AM | Reply

200 posts relitigating the Kavanaugh affair a year later.
Good lord, you people really are morons.

#208 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-17 08:50 AM

Sadly, after the collapse of the Russian Collusion Debacle and Pelosi's persistent refusal to commence a formal impeachment inquiry into the gift wrapped Obstruction case, this is all these Dolts have.

#216 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"He'll slam that paper on Trump's desk and will say, "Here's a list of justices we will consider for the seat vacated by RBG. If you nominate anyone who is not on this list they will receive the Garland treatment.""

And there will be two names on the paper:

MERRICK GARLAND
BARACK OBAMA

#217 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-17 11:29 AM | Reply

#213 - you don't need me to do that, but I'll have your back on that, Jeff :)

#215 | POSTED BY YAV

Thanks! Actually, the 'Hans my post' comment wasn't directed at you.

I've made that claim before and have had a couple of people accuse me of lying - how I could lie about something that hasn't even happened yet and may not happen is beyond me, but that's beside the point.

So, I'd like to clarify by saying to anyone who doesn't believe that I will react that way, please Hans my post (I've said the same thing many times in the past since the Garland thing happened) and save it for later.

#218 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 11:50 AM | Reply

MERRICK GARLAND
BARACK OBAMA

#217 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Garland is getting up there in age and Obama would never accept the nomination. First, he's not really qualified and more importantly he'd be miserable in that job - he'd be bored out of his mind.

#219 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 11:52 AM | Reply

The names on that hypothetical list would all be Earl Warren 2.0 in the 30-to-mid 50 range.

#220 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 11:53 AM | Reply

"Obama would never accept the nomination ... he'd be bored out of his mind."

Oh, it'd be done just to pwn the konzervaturdz.

#221 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-17 11:56 AM | Reply

I find it an interesting 'coincidence' that Max Stier was a defending lawyer for Bill Clinton's impeachment while Kavanaugh was on the opposite team [worked for Starr].

#222 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-17 12:27 PM | Reply

"If Trump wins 2020 but the GOP loses the Senate and shortly thereafter Ginsburg retires, this is what I expect will happen"

If that happens, there will not be a compromise justice, Trump will simply leave the seat vacant, and 4-4 ties will mostly break Republican based on lower court decisions, is my guess.

#223 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-17 01:19 PM | Reply

If that happens, there will not be a compromise justice, Trump will simply leave the seat vacant, and 4-4 ties will mostly break Republican based on lower court decisions, is my guess.

#223 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That's how I foresee it as well.

#224 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 01:33 PM | Reply

#224 Well you left the part where Trump just lets the Supreme Court fester, after "Schumer then turns around and walks out."

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-17 03:09 PM | Reply

he'd be miserable in that job - he'd be bored out of his mind.

Disagree. I think most legal scholars would leap at the chance.

#226 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 03:16 PM | Reply

#226 It just doesn't sound like something that would appeal to him.

It's not like he's some nerdy legal scholar. He was a part time college lecturer, a state legislator and then POTUS (with a brief stint in the Senate).

He's got celebrity status and it's obvious he really enjoys it.

#227 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 04:38 PM | Reply

It's not like he's some nerdy legal scholar.

True enough, but he taught ConLaw for 12 years which is a pretty good place to geek out about the Constitution. If he liked it i could see him liking the SC. This isn't meant to be an endorsement; i havent seen his writings and he obviously has no judicial experience.

He's got celebrity status and it's obvious he really enjoys it.

I mean...really? He strikes me as someone who has largely avoided the limelight, but maybe you meant something else by that.

#228 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-17 04:53 PM | Reply

Joe,

I think he enjoys hobnobbing with the celebrity crowd. That's not a criticism, BTW.

I think he'd rather do some behind the scenes political activism and produce shows for Netflix.

#229 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 04:55 PM | Reply

I think the Jack Ass party has jumped the shark. Too many accusations that led no where, too much hype, to much desperation. Kavanaugh has been in office as a judge or public office for 30 years+. What I have learned about sexual predators, they do not change their stripes. If he was a predator in school, he would have continued while among a large group of women that he controlled professionally for decades. Did he party and beige drink while a high school and a undergraduate? I seriously know of very few that did not. Did he rape anyone? The only testimony was a professor of women's studies, and as an acknowledged activist, that gives me pause. Her story has more holes than a cullender, yet that passes for truth among some. Then the latest "bomb shell" is not even supported by the supposed victim, but is promoted by a Democratic operative.
At some time if the story isn't believable, at some point the credibility of the teller starts to suffer.

#230 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-09-18 07:11 AM | Reply

Too many accusations that led no where, too much hype, to much desperation.

#230 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Who knows where they would have gone? The Trump FBI refused to ever investigate, refused to interview many people, and refused to do its job.

Remember this from now on, anytime there is a call for an investigation while a Dem is President, Republicans cannot make the call and Democrats have full right to block it.

And you better remember that female voters will remember it. After all, the public as a whole opposed Kavanaugh being confirmed.

#231 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 03:09 PM | Reply

And the Democrats can claim "Privilege!" for blocking ALL investigations by Congress. Trump's already suing Congress over their over-sight abilities saying in Court Briefings that Congress can't ask the Courts for enforcement of subpoenas and documents - that Congress can only go to the DOJ - which the Executive controls. Crazy times.

#232 | Posted by YAV at 2019-09-18 03:29 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