Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 17, 2019

The Atlantic: We conducted hundreds of interviews with principal players in [Brett] Kavanaugh's education, career, and confirmation. We read thousands of documents. We reviewed hours of television interviews, along with reams of newspaper, magazine, and digital coverage. We studied maps of Montgomery Country, Maryland, as well as housing-renovation plans and court records. We watched Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings multiple times. ... Ultimately, we combined our notebooks with our common sense and came to believe an utterly human narrative: that [Christine Blasey] Ford and [Deborah] Ramirez were mistreated by Kavanaugh when he was a teenager, and that Kavanaugh over the next 35 years became a better person.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Ramirez, who was a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's, said he drunkenly thrust his penis at her during a party in their freshman-year dormitory, Lawrance Hall. The people who allegedly witnessed the event -- Kavanaugh's friends Kevin Genda, David Todd, and David White -- have kept mum about it. Kavanaugh has denied it. If such an incident had occurred, Kavanaugh said, it would have been the "talk of campus."

Our reporting suggests that, in fact, it was. At least five people have a strong recollection of hearing about the alleged incident with Ramirez long before Kavanaugh was a federal judge.

Comments

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

From the cited article:

...Years ago, when she was practicing her closing arguments at the family dinner table, Martha Kavanaugh often returned to her signature line as a state prosecutor. "Use your common sense," she'd say. "What rings true? What rings false?"

Those words made a strong impression on her young son, Brett. They also made a strong impression on us, as we embarked on our 10-month investigation of the Supreme Court justice. We conducted hundreds of interviews with principal players in Kavanaugh's education, career, and confirmation. We read thousands of documents. We reviewed hours of television interviews, along with reams of newspaper, magazine, and digital coverage. We studied maps of Montgomery Country, Maryland, as well as housing-renovation plans and court records. We watched Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings multiple times....



Quite the interesting article.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-17 11:47 PM | Reply

--We read thousands of documents.

I feel like I've read thousands of posts from Tony Truther and Truther Tuesday. Probably not that many, only a thousand at most.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-18 12:14 AM | Reply

So raping women just makes you a better person when you learn from it?

Line up ladies. It's just an alternate sexuality.

I'm in!

#3 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-09-18 12:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#2 ... I feel like I've read thousands of posts from Tony Truther and Truther Tuesday. Probably not that many, only a thousand at most. ...

So the only thing you can say in defense of Justice Kavanaugh in this scenario is a babbling comment?

That adds to the confirmation of my prior comments about the [lack of] qualifications of Justice Kavanaugh.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-09-18 01:02 AM | Reply

We had to offer Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt, venturing to empathize with his suffering if he were falsely accused.

As mothers of daughters, we were prone to believe and support the women who spoke up. As mothers of sons, we had to imagine what it would be like if the men we loved were wrongly charged with these offenses.

As people, our gut reaction was that the allegations of Ford and Ramirez from the past rang true.

Often the things that go unsaid may be as important as the things that are said. No one should ever relish in another person's pain and certainly not the pain of someone claiming to have been forced into experiences against their will by others.

I enter into every situation with an open mind, searching for the evidence and details that make understanding what happened (or didn't happen) make sense.

Unproven as it is, we found that the account of Christine Blasey Ford"to use Martha's phrase""rings true." Ford's social circle overlapped with that of Kavanaugh as a high-school student. She dated his good friend Chris Garrett. Her good friend Leland Keyser dated Mark Judge. Judge and Kavanaugh, whom Ford recalled being together in the room where she was allegedly assaulted, were close friends. They were often seen together at parties, and their tendency to drink beer, sometimes to excess, was well known.

None of that means that Ford was, in fact, assaulted by Kavanaugh. But it does mean that she has a baseline level of credibility as an accuser.

Her credibility is affirmed in other ways, too. We have seen no evidence of Ford fabricating stories, either recently or historically. Multiple people attest to her honesty. Last August, she passed a polygraph test focused on her Kavanaugh memories. Her former boyfriend Brian Merrick said in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he hadn't known of her fear of flying or of tight spaces when they dated in the 1990s, raising questions for Republicans about the anxiety issues Ford has attributed in part to the alleged assault. But Merrick also said in the affidavit and in a later interview that he has never doubted Ford's truthfulness.

This is why I've always felt a more thorough investigation was warranted in the face of Kavanaugh's vehement denials and counter accusations against those who looked at the above fact pattern and questioned the veracity or accuracy of recollections of the person who admittedly spent significant portions of his youth steeped in alcohol use/abuse and who dutifully documented the same by his own volition.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-18 07:09 AM | Reply

Ford has no credibility. I wouldn't believe her if she said it was raining and water was falling from the sky. It strains my imagination that anyone could suspend their rational thought enough to believe her fantasy. Notice I didn't have to cut and paste this.

#6 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-18 07:39 AM | Reply

We read thousands of documents. We reviewed hours of television interviews, along with reams of newspaper, magazine, and digital coverage. We studied maps of Montgomery Country, Maryland, as well as housing-renovation plans and court records.

..and still haven't turned up any of Barack Obama's college enrollment documents, grades, papers he wrote, etc...

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-18 08:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

.and still haven't turned up any of Barack Obama's college enrollment documents, grades, papers he wrote, etc...

#7 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2019-09-18 08:02 AM | FLAG:

Typical right winger. Deflecting to Obama. How typical.

#8 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-18 08:11 AM | Reply

There was no criminal investigation into this matter. There was an FBI background check to give Senators sufficient information to consent to or decline to consent to the President's nomination. The FBI background check surely included that an allegation of an attack occurred, and it probably detailed the evidence and lack-thereof. There was never any need for a detailed investigation, as this still has never been a criminal investigation. The Senators evidently determined that enough background information was made available that they could reach a determination whether they consented to the president's nomination.

If an in-depth, comprehensive investigation is warranted...the criminal complaint that would prompt such an investigation can be made at any time.
Aaaaaaany time.
Any time.
...

#9 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 08:29 AM | Reply

that [Christine Blasey] Ford and [Deborah] Ramirez were mistreated by Kavanaugh when he was a teenager, and that Kavanaugh over the next 35 years became a better person.

Posted by rcade at 11:16 PM | 9 COMMENTS | pe

Then that's what Judge Keg should have said under oath, rather than parse words concerning the nature of alcoholism.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-18 08:50 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

This is rank desperation.

Ford's story has been destroyed by Keyser.

Ramirez isn't even sure Kavanaugh was in the room. She was hammered and her recollection is fuzzy. She has ZERO eyewitnesses. Zero.

Lefties are making a mistake by trying to make this news again. It's vile and disgusting and it plays into the GOP's hands heading into 2020.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 08:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 20

Then that's what Judge Keg should have said under oath, rather than parse words concerning the nature of alcoholism.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-18 09:03 AM | Reply

Then that's what Judge Keg should have said under oath, rather than parse words concerning the nature of alcoholism. - #10 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-18 08:50 AM
Why are you suggesting that Kavanaugh lie under oath that he mistreated these women? Deranged people would rather he keep his comments in line with the truth than to lie under oath because it would make Zed feel better.

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 09:17 AM | Reply

Deranged people? Ok...No idea where that came from.
Freudian?

#14 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 09:49 AM | Reply

Ford's story has been destroyed by Keyser.

Ramirez isn't even sure Kavanaugh was in the room. She was hammered and her recollection is fuzzy. She has ZERO eyewitnesses. Zero.

Lefties are making a mistake by trying to make this news again. It's vile and disgusting and it plays into the GOP's hands heading into 2020.

Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 08:58 AM | Reply

Delusions are a right wingers best friend.

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-18 09:49 AM | Reply

Knowing that over twenty-five eyewitnesses to Kavanaugh's junk at various parties were attempting to testify to the FBI and are ignored makes their purpose as an criminal authority suspect, not just their pathetic observance of illogical, outright criminal negligence as standard of practice at the behest of the senate.

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

Knowing that over twenty-five eyewitnesses to Kavanaugh's junk at various parties were attempting to testify to the FBI and are ignored makes their purpose as an criminal authority suspect, not just their pathetic observance of illogical, outright criminal negligence as standard of practice at the behest of the senate.

#16 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT

Can you source your claim?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 10:11 AM | Reply

Robot,

Keep in mind that Julie Swetnick is an eyewitness of a Kavanaugh date-rape-drug ring of train rape.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 10:12 AM | Reply

Witnesses don't exist.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-09-18 10:32 AM | Reply

Ford's story has been destroyed by Keyser.

No it hasn't, and the key is that Keyser is only one person, not the be all and end all you keep trying to claim that she is.

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

Keyser thought the whole setup Ford described"the Columbia Country Club, followed by a gathering with boys at a local home"sounded wrong, given that Keyser had been working at the Congressional Country Club that summer. But Keyser acknowledged that she was a member of the Columbia club, and that she might have stopped by to watch Ford dive and then decided to go to a party. (Ford also said not to assume that the gathering had originated at the club, guessing that it might have been arranged by Keyser and Judge by phone or in person elsewhere.)

Keyser said she didn't recognize Kavanaugh from high-school photos. She did recognize and remember Judge, whom she said she had dated once or twice and bumped into at a recovery meeting in Potomac in the mid-aughts. It is possible that Ford's account is wrong and that Keyser's lack of recollection is proof of that. But experts say that many memories of insignificant people and places in our lives aren't stored. In the months after the confirmation battle, Keyser continued to appear perturbed by her unexpected role in it, indicating in a text message to one of us late in March that she believed she was being surveilled at home, possibly by people related to the Kavanaugh matter.

At the time of the 'hangout' no one but for Ford, Judge, and Kavanaugh would have known that a drunken attempt had occurred because Ford didn't tell anyone and then left the house. Why should Keyser have any recollection of this particular hangout when to her, there was no reason to differentiate it from the dozens of similar hangouts she likely attended in high school? It's common sense. No one is going to remember an unremarkable, repeated activity that had no distinguishing factors which would have made it indelibly memorable. This is what the experts say, quoted in the excerpt above. Unless Judge and Kavanaugh told the group of friends what happened upstairs, how would any of them have known since Ford said nothing?
We located Judge, who declined to elaborate much beyond his statement to the public and the FBI, which was that he didn't remember the incident. We reached out, repeatedly, to Patrick Smyth, who as a boy allegedly attended the party but did not witness the assault. Smyth did not answer our calls and emails, but he has consistently said to friends as well as to the FBI that he has no memory of the event or of Ford.
One of the reasons an investigation could uncover better recollections is that by a collective revisiting of details something else unique could emerge as a memory jog (the group was talking about a person, subject, or even a popular song that would have been memorable at that particular point in time which might refocus other recollections of that particular hangout ie... "Oh, yeah, I remember we were talking about xyz, and he was there, and she was there. Yeah, now I remember better.")

And in the same vein, the collective memory might have been that Kav and Judge never left the main room together casting doubt on Ford's account. These authors tried as best they can, but with all those claiming not to remember, I'd feel much better if these memories were tested under the penalty of perjury and the pressure of not knowing if someone else suddenly does remember something important that they didn't before.

This is why a thorough investigation even at this late date could add more detail to the collective knowledge of what happened or didn't.

#20 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-18 10:54 AM | Reply

At the time of the 'hangout' no one but for Ford, Judge, and Kavanaugh would have known that a drunken attempt had occurred because Ford didn't tell anyone and then left the house. Why should Keyser have any recollection of this particular hangout when to her, there was no reason to differentiate it from the dozens of similar hangouts she likely attended in high school?

Keyser addresses that.

She said there is no way she wouldn't have wondered where Ford went and wouldn't have wondered how she got home if she was with her at a party with 3 other boys. Further, she says that after looking at High School pictures and maps she concluded that she never even met Kavanaugh and rarely hung out with kids from the prep school he attended.

You are chasing a phantom. The party that Ford described didn't happen.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 11:16 AM | Reply

This thread proves Conservatives won't believe anything no matter the facts, the lie detector tests, and the number of witnesses.

Donald Trump "could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and [he] wouldn't lose voters." It wouldn't be because they don't care. It would be that despite a hundred witnesses, 5 videos, and Trump admitting it, they STILL wouldn't believe it.

Face it, Republicans have left planet earth.

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 11:25 AM | Reply

Face it, Republicans have left planet earth.

#22 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

When it comes to these absurd allegations against Kavanaugh, it would be Democrats who have left planet earth.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 11:26 AM | Reply

Ford's story has been destroyed by Keyser.
#11 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Kavanaugh
1. Needs me to believe him to be on the Supreme Court so he has a reason to lie
2. Lied repeatedly during his confirmation about activities during his youth like "boofing"
3. Has numerous people accusing him of sexual assault
4. Has numerous people confirming the allegations fits his behavioral pattern when he was young
5. Refused a lie detector test

Ford:
1. Nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward
2. Witnesses corroborate her telling them it happened well before Kavanaugh appointed by Trump
3. Passed a lie detector test

I'm not sure what planet you are on, but I hope it's nice there.

#24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 11:37 AM | Reply

#21 It's interesting how much faith you put in one person who says "it didn't happen" or "i don't remember that" versus another person who says "it did happen." It's almost like there's a particular version of events you really want to believe.

And yes, i know that in a criminal proceeding the burden of proof is on the accused. That doesn't mean that anyone has to meet that standard on a blog, especially when we're talking about something that might have happened 40 years ago.

At the end of the day, i personally think there is enough out there to convince me that Kavanaugh, at minimum, perjured himself and showed a disqualifying temperament in his hearings. If you think otherwise, so be it. But beating this dead horse about evidence is really quite ridiculous when the majority of sexual assaults go unreported and this one is alleged to have happened many decades ago.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-18 11:53 AM | Reply

1. Needs me to believe him to be on the Supreme Court so he has a reason to lie

Because he might have a reason to lie doesn't mean he lied.

2. Lied repeatedly during his confirmation about activities during his youth like "boofing"

You are basing that off an urban dictionary definition. You have no idea what the slang terms were for his social group in the early '80's. To say that you know he's lying about how he and his friends used that word is simply dishonest on your part.

3. Has numerous people accusing him of sexual assault

ZERO eyewitnesses. 2 people, actually. Do you want me to break down the absurdity of each accusation? I can, and I have.

4. Has numerous people confirming the allegations fits his behavioral pattern when he was young

The drinking, yes. The sexual assault. Emphatic no. You are really conflating some very different things as if it proves a point.

5. Refused a lie detector test

So what. To my knowledge a lie detector test has never been part of a judicial confirmation hearing.

1. Nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward

Bull. She's been lionized as a hero by the left and can ink any book deal she wants. Also, her lawyer bragged that getting an asterisk after his name in case Roe came before the court was part of her motivation. She had plenty to gain and all she had to do was look to history - Anita Hill.

2. Witnesses corroborate her telling them it happened well before Kavanaugh appointed by Trump

That would be 2012 and those witnesses were her husband and therapist and the supposed trigger was Romney listing Kavanaugh as one of those who was on his short list. Further, some of the details of her story that she told her therapist were different than what she testified before the Senate committee.

You seem wedded to a narrative here and your bullet points were both intellectually lazy and deceptive. You are usually much better than this.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 11:56 AM | Reply

At the time of the 'hangout' no one but for Ford, Judge, and Kavanaugh would have known that a drunken attempt had occurred because Ford didn't tell anyone and then left the house. Why should Keyser have any recollection of this particular hangout when to her, there was no reason to differentiate it from the dozens of similar hangouts she likely attended in high school? It's common sense. No one is going to remember an unremarkable, repeated activity that had no distinguishing factors which would have made it indelibly memorable. This is what the experts say, quoted in the excerpt above. Unless Judge and Kavanaugh told the group of friends what happened upstairs, how would any of them have known since Ford said nothing? - #20 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-18 10:54 AM

Keyser indicated that it would be outside the realm of her behavior to go to a party at someone's house that she didn't know with Ford and then to allow Ford to leave her at that party, alone.
Occam's Razor the thing. Put yourself in the shoes of a 16? year old girl, in a house party with nobody she knows, that she's never been at, and suddenly she's left alone. That is the party that you think would not have a become a lasting memory for her? You're working too hard to try to disprove this lady's claim that the she was never at such a party.

But after your false claims about Kavanaugh lately, I'm not in the least bit surprised that you're working so very hard to cast doubt onto the evidence that cripples Dr. Ford's narrative.

#27 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 11:58 AM | Reply

#21 It's interesting how much faith you put in one person who says "it didn't happen" or "i don't remember that" versus another person who says "it did happen." It's almost like there's a particular version of events you really want to believe.

If it were just 1 person, that would be 1 thing. That everybody she listed as being at that gathering is quite another thing. Add to it that key parts of her story were different when she testified than what she told her therapist. Throw in things she said that were demonstrably false (being afraid to fly, etc). Add in things said about her by an ex-boyfriend (who admittedly may have had an ax to grind). Going back to Keyser - it's not just that she said she doesn't remember the party. She goes several steps further in saying that if Ford had abruptly left the party she absolutely would have wondered where she went and wondered how she got home. On top of that, after looking at maps and photos she concludes that she never even met Kavanaugh and rarely socialized with kids from the school he attended.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 12:02 PM | Reply

#28 You really don't get it do you.

You're playing cross-examiner on a story from 1982.

I don't care if she told her therapist one thing and a Senate Committee another. Sexual assault and trauma survivors are known to have fragmented and incomplete memories.. Considering the personal information you've divulged on this topic, it is incredible to me that you would not be more accommodating of that fact.

At the end of the day, as i said, it is my opinion that Kavanaugh has at minimum lied and shown a disqualifying temperament. Feel free to get wrapped up in the details if you want. I saw what i saw.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-18 12:07 PM | Reply

-It's interesting how much faith you put in one person who says "it didn't happen" or "i don't remember that" versus another person who says "it did happen."

fair point. I don't put much faith in anyone's uncorroborated statements from 30 years ago.

what I have to put faith in is a process where an exhaustive search happened to determine if these allegations were true and a full vetting process took place.


#30 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-18 12:09 PM | Reply

-You're playing cross-examiner on a story from 1982.

So is Tony, but that doesn't bother you.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-18 12:10 PM | Reply

I'm certain that I would have hated Kavanaugh at the time these events took place. He was a rich ----- prep school d-bag walking around like he could do no wrong.

But I just described a schitt-ton of folks in the power structure in DC on both sides of the aisle.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-18 12:13 PM | Reply

an exhaustive search happened to determine if these allegations were true

The entire premise of recent news reports is that your statement is inaccurate.

So is Tony, but that doesn't bother you.

You're right. Because at the end of the day, Tony lands where I land (that Kavanaugh doesn't belong on the SC). My time is better spent arguing with people who don't reach that conclusion.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-18 12:14 PM | Reply

Women only go to the bathroom in pairs or groups. If Ford said she had to pee, they would have all gone like a flock of laying hens.

#34 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-09-18 12:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"10-month investigation of the Supreme Court justice. We conducted hundreds of interviews with principal players in Kavanaugh's education, career, and confirmation. We read thousands of documents. We reviewed hours of television interviews, along with reams of newspaper, magazine, and digital coverage. We studied maps of Montgomery Country, Maryland, as well as housing-renovation plans and court records. We watched Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings multiple times"

that equals "not exhaustive"?

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-18 12:16 PM | Reply

Kavanaugh...2. Lied repeatedly during his confirmation about activities during his youth like "boofing" - #24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 11:37 AM

Jeff did an excellent rebuttal of your points, but I want to touch on this one.
You are wrong.
I've linked numerous times people backing Kavanaugh's explanation about the things that ignorant folks are claiming -without any evidence at all - that he's lying about.
At this point if you still remain ignorant and passing along debunked misinformation like your #2, it can only because you not only choose to remain ignorant, but want to intentionally misinform other people as well.
Making claims without evidence and intentionally misinforming people are the same kinds of behaviour that liars engage in.

#36 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 12:16 PM | Reply

-Making claims without evidence and intentionally misinforming people are the same kinds of behaviour that liars engage in.

I don't understand how stupid people have to be to continue doing that when there is no point.

nothing new is coming from any of this.....if we discover something we didn't know before that's significant and should warrant some action against Kavanaugh...fine.

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-18 12:20 PM | Reply

that equals "not exhaustive"?

What you described was done by journalists after he was already confirmed. I was talking about the FBI's investigation. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-18 12:24 PM | Reply

38

I assumed as much....but after all this time...what do you know now you didn't after the FBI investigation throughout the confirmation process?

You can only get some much done during the confirmation process.

Are you suggesting we make the confirmation process last 10 months so journalists can rip any SCOTUS nominee and their family a new -------?

Geez...just admit it...you don't care about any of this stuff on Kavanaugh.

You and Tony are just pissed that the GOP blocked and Obama nominee and Trump got his through...and that's not fair.

I agree...it's not fair. I supported Garland 100% and would have much rather seen him on the court.

get over it.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-18 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What you described was done by journalists after he was already confirmed. I was talking about the FBI's investigation. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

#38 | POSTED BY JOE

Given that these 2 women spent 10 months on this and turned up bupkiss it's pretty clear the FBI investigation was adequate.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 12:30 PM | Reply

after all this time...what do you know now you didn't after the FBI investigation throughout the confirmation process?

I haven't read all the new details, but i already said that Kavanaugh demonstrated untruthfulness and a disqualifying temperament regardless of whether he assaulted someone, so i don't need to see proof of an assault today to think he's a lying drunk who doesn't deserve to be on SCOTUS.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-18 12:33 PM | Reply

#40 Did you miss #29?

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2019-09-18 12:33 PM | Reply

I saw #29. I'm jumping from thread to thread so if #40 was out of context I apologize.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 12:35 PM | Reply

#26 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You can write off whatever you want, but we've charged and convicted people on less information. Ford is highly credible. Kavanaugh is not.

I'm also unsure where the right's obsession with eye witnesses comes from. There are 2 eye witnesses: the accusers. Rarely do crimes have more than that.

Ironically they charge Clinton with similar incidents on far far less information: just an accuser.
Reality is simple: it's likely partially true it happened.

But I agree with the article: he was a young, stupid kid. I'm not going to hold the actions of a young stupid kid against him 30 years later.

#44 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 12:45 PM | Reply

Ford is highly credible.

She's so credible that her allies threatened to smear Keyser if she didn't toe the line.

but we've charged and convicted people on less information.

Riiiiiight.

Here's what another Ivy league lawyer has to say about that:

It's a phrase without any real legal meaning. "Credible" is not the standard of proof in court. But to the extent it means anything at all, it should not apply to any of the claims against Kavanaugh.

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.


www.nationalreview.com

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 12:57 PM | Reply

Ford is highly credible. Kavanaugh is not.
I'm also unsure where the right's obsession with eye witnesses comes from. There are 2 eye witnesses: the accusers. Rarely do crimes have more than that. - #44 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 12:45 PM

Except that there was a 3rd named eyewitness who stated under penalty of perjury that the event didn't happen.
I can't begin to fathom why someone of any moral integrity would just ignore that, though.

#46 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 01:02 PM | Reply

The authors of this book claim Kavanaugh's friends have remained mum.

Well, this was in the much derided New Yorker piece:

One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. I don't think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter,' he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, I have no idea.' The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, I have zero recollection.'

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and one other classmate, Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez's account of events: We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it"and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett's Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.'


www.newyorker.com

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 01:17 PM | Reply

#26 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Christ, I have to take this garbage apart...

Kavanaugh:
1. Needs me to believe him to be on the Supreme Court so he has a reason to lie
Because he might have a reason to lie doesn't mean he lied.
No, but it undercuts his credibility against an accuser who has nothing to gain and will lose a lot.

2. Lied repeatedly during his confirmation about activities during his youth like "boofing"
You are basing that off an urban dictionary definition. You have no idea what the slang terms were for his social group in the early '80's. To say that you know he's lying about how he and his friends used that word is simply dishonest on your part.
First, Boofing was an example. There were other issues he lied about like the school yearbook. Second, we base that off of people who actually knew Kavanaugh and said what it meant. Third, literally no one backed up his version of what it was or the other issues like the yearbook. Instead, witnesses corroborated what the terms meant.

3. Has numerous people accusing him of sexual assault
ZERO eyewitnesses. 2 people, actually. Do you want me to break down the absurdity of each accusation? I can, and I have.
Sure there was eye witnesses. There was the accusers. Very few crimes have more than that.

4. Has numerous people confirming the allegations fits his behavioral pattern when he was young
The drinking, yes. The sexual assault. Emphatic no. You are really conflating some very different things as if it proves a point.
Actually, treatment of women, yes. Numerous people confirmed things like his attitude at the time and the yearbook issue. In addition, the drinking was part and parcel with the root cause of the event: drunk Kavanaugh.

5. Refused a lie detector test
So what. To my knowledge a lie detector test has never been part of a judicial confirmation hearing.
It goes to credibility. You ignore the credibility gap.

#48 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 01:19 PM | Reply

Ford:
1. Nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward
Bull. She's been lionized as a hero by the left and can ink any book deal she wants. Also, her lawyer bragged that getting an asterisk after his name in case Roe came before the court was part of her motivation. She had plenty to gain and all she had to do was look to history - Anita Hill.
What benefit did she get out of that? She didn't want to be outed. It was against her will. There is no financial incentive. She gets death threats. Stop re-writing history.
And book deal? Did she ink one yet? Try again.

2. Witnesses corroborate her telling them it happened well before Kavanaugh appointed by Trump
That would be 2012 and those witnesses were her husband and therapist and the supposed trigger was Romney listing Kavanaugh as one of those who was on his short list. Further, some of the details of her story that she told her therapist were different than what she testified before the Senate committee.
I know you think women go around talking about how so and so sexually assaulted them 20 years ago, but that doesn't happen. He was on TV and she said, "Oh I know that -------. He got drunk and assaulted me." She didn't forget it. And yeah, she probably was triggered that some ------- who attacked her drunk one night now had power over people's lives. Who wouldn't be?
And of course the details of her story alter slightly with each retelling. If you ever worked in criminal law or with victims, you'd know this was par for the course. Every single one has details that are slightly different. That's how our memories work. If I asked you to tell me a story about something that happened to you and asked you to tell the same story 6 months later, the details would be slightly different.

Jeff, the problem is you want undeniable facts with eye witnesses and memories acting more like video tape. Hardly any criminal case or civil case ever has that. Ever. All the facts point to Ford being credible and Kavanaugh having credibility issues. It doesn't mean it definitely happened. But pretending you are sure Ford is lying just because she can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt 30 years later is ridiculous. Kavanaugh had a history of drinking heavily and treating women like objects when he was younger. Frankly the evidence and credibility suggest it is more likely than not that something did happen closer to Ford's description. Exactly as Ford says? Probably not. But pretending you are sure Ford is lying makes you either a hack or an idiot. I don't think you are either but you are ignoring reality to believe Kavanaugh.

#49 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 01:19 PM | Reply

All the facts point to Ford being credible #49 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-09-18 01:19 PM
Other than her changing story and her named witnesses refuting her claims. Wait...what other facts were there, again?

#50 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 01:30 PM | Reply

No, but it undercuts his credibility against an accuser who has nothing to gain and will lose a lot.

Already addressed. Her lawyer bragged that this was done in part to put an asterisk after his name in case Roe comes before the court. Anita Hill has a fricking shrine at the black history museum (yes, that's an exaggeration for you literalists).

First, Boofing was an example. There were other issues he lied about like the school yearbook. Second, we base that off of people who actually knew Kavanaugh and said what it meant. Third, literally no one backed up his version of what it was or the other issues like the yearbook. Instead, witnesses corroborated what the terms meant.

I'll have to look into that. My recollection is his friends corroborated Kavanaugh's definitions.

Kavanaugh had a history of drinking heavily and treating women like objects when he was younger.

Again, my recollection is the opposite of what you've put in bold.

But pretending you are sure Ford is lying...

Fair enough. I should (and will) dial that back.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 01:42 PM | Reply

Other than her changing story and her named witnesses refuting her claims. Wait...what other facts were there, again?
#50 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I wouldn't get snarky. He put a lot of thought into #48 and #49 and I appreciate that level of effort.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 01:43 PM | Reply

I wouldn't get snarky. He put a lot of thought into #48 and #49 and I appreciate that level of effort.
#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 01:43 PM

Effort like broad-brushing a false claim like 'he lied about like the school yearbook' and 'literally no one backed up his version of what it was'
You appreciate his level of effort in lying, because literally there are articles I've posted, and I assume you've read, that do what Sychophant lied about in 48.
Was it his efforts making his false claims in bold that you aprpeciated?
'Kavanaugh had a history of...treating women like objects when he was younger' is untrue no matter how bold he makes it.
You're a lot more forgiving of someone who puts a lot of efforts into spreading misinformation that I do, I suppose.

#53 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 02:13 PM | Reply

You're a lot more forgiving of someone who puts a lot of efforts into spreading misinformation than I do, I suppose.

#54 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 02:25 PM | Reply

#53 Avigdore,

'literally no one backed up his version of what it was'

Is that a lie? Like I said, I recall it the opposite of his claim, but my recollection can be faulty.

Ditto for this: treating women like objects when he was younger'

Again, is that a lie?

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 02:32 PM | Reply

All the facts point to Ford being credible

This I disagree with. Ford's credibility has been hurt on a number of claims.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 02:33 PM | Reply

Jeff, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

twitter.com
www.washingtonexaminer.com

I don't have a link that says that Kav didn't treat women like objects...reporters don't spend a lot of time writing stories about when people haven't done something bad.

#57 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-09-18 07:04 PM | Reply

#57 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Thank you!

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 07:07 PM | Reply

I need to go back to something...

But pretending you are sure Ford is lying makes you either a hack or an idiot. I don't think you are either but you are ignoring reality to believe Kavanaugh.

#49 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Just up-thread you made this claim:

2. Lied repeatedly during his confirmation about activities during his youth like "boofing"

At best you have conflicting accounts regarding those slang terms - the one conflicting account I've seen is from his Yale roommate and the 2 hated each other. So, pretending you are sure Kavanaugh is lying about the terms makes you either a hack or an idiot. I don't think you are either but you are ignoring reality to believe his roommate Bocher.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 07:12 PM | Reply

You're an idiot Jeff.

#60 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-18 11:00 PM | Reply

Reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly said that Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed to speak to them as long as they publicly said he declined the interview.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington on Wednesday, Kelly and Pogrebin said that Kavanaugh said he would talk to the reporters to provide them with background information as long as they falsely noted in the book that he declined to be interviewed.

The Times reporters said their talks about setting up an interview with Kavanaugh took place when the book was in its final stages.

Kelly and Pogrebin said they couldn't agree to the justice's terms, so they couldn't conduct the interview.

www.huffpost.com

So was Kavanaugh trying to get his side of the story on record without having his own name attached to the project?

Or might he have wanted to create a situation where himself or his proxies could later attack the very information that Kav was planning to share with the writers?

#61 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-09-19 11:15 AM | Reply

You're an idiot Jeff.

#60 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

I'd reply in kind but I don't want to risk making you angry.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-19 11:17 AM | Reply

10 Months Investigating Kavanaugh: Here's What We Found: Nothing incriminating that we tried to spin as negative anyways and plenty of exculpatory information that we deliberately downplayed.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-19 11:19 AM | Reply

Suspicious timing of accusations, given that he has had a long public career already. The only "proof" offered is a "gut feeling". Someone mentioned upthread that the FBI received hundreds of eyewitness reports of him sexually assaulting women as a teen and ignored them, but the poster never responded to the request for a source.

I am more than willing to believe it happened, he is not who I'd like to have seen nominated. However, it is irresponsible to hold to your opinion that it did happen while de-emphasizing both your desire to believe it happened and the lack of proof.

#64 | Posted by Ottodog at 2019-09-19 02:24 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