Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 05, 2022

FBI Director Chris Wray admitted in a Senate hearing on Thursday that the FBI forwarded to the White House the hundreds of tips it received about Brett Kavanaugh in the fall of 2018, during his Supreme Court confirmation process, but did not first investigate those tips.

More

Comments

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

In a June 30 letter to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Chris ----- (D-DE), an FBI assistant director, Jill Tyson, said that "all relevant tips" from a batch of 4,500 received during a 2018 investigation into former President Donald Trump's top pick for the court were passed off to the office of Trump's White House counsel Don McGahn, whose handling of them remains unclear.

It also was unclear from the letter whether or not the agency had tracked down any of those leads and how many were in fact consequential.

Whitehouse blasted FBI director Chris Wray in a statement on Thursday afternoon.

"This long-delayed answer confirms how badly we were spun by Director Wray and the FBI in the Kavanaugh background investigation and hearing," he wrote on Twitter.

"I charged that the tip line' was really a tip dump, with all the tips going straight into the dumpster without investigation. In fact it was a tip dump where all the tips went straight to White House Counsel without investigation. Same difference."

Good lord, Trump and his psychopathy has corrupted the entirety of the federal government. It will take decades to undo the damage Trump was able to wrought in only four years.

And why does Wray still have his job?

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-04 09:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is your cue righty tightys... let the oinking commence.

#2 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2022-08-05 11:34 AM | Reply

"And why does Wray still have his job?"

"Nothing will fundamentally change."

#3 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-08-05 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

why does Wray still have his job?

I'm sure Democrats have an excuse as to why their hands are tied.

Biden is drawing hearts he hopes to hand out to Republicans to change their evil ways.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-08-05 11:53 AM | Reply

And Biden continues to let the T**** plants keep their jobs. That's not going to work out for him. He should fire Wray via Twitter and make him pay for his own plane trip back. While he's at it, clean house everywhere. I simply don't understand why you keep traitors on staff to destroy evidence and keep committing crimes of omission...

#5 | Posted by chuffy at 2022-08-05 01:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Simple solution. Publish the tips. Something tells me "the other side" had access to them at some point. I doubt theres any "smoking guns" in that pile.

#6 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 07:28 PM | Reply

How many of those tips were flushed down the toilet by the demented orange pedo?

#7 | Posted by Reinheitsgebot at 2022-08-05 08:17 PM | Reply

Trump suffers from Document Bulimia. Give the guy a break.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-05 08:22 PM | Reply

Somehow I don't think the FBI's tip filing system is on slips of toilet paper, but hey, who knows.

I have worked on "tip lines", and a big chunk of people who call in or write in to that sort of thing are lonely crackpots looking for attention and companionship. That sort of thing just attracts the tin hat crowd.

#9 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 08:23 PM | Reply

Flushing documents down the toilet was common for the demented orange pedo.

www.axios.com

#10 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-08-05 08:31 PM | Reply

Well lookeee here, apparently the tip records WERE made public. Not sure if this is all 4500 but have at it.

vault.fbi.gov

#11 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 08:31 PM | Reply

I read a few pages and learned the Mormon scum are stealing song lyrics and Presidents Obama and Biden actually killed hundreds of children while they were in office.

#12 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 08:36 PM | Reply

Yeah, this is real smoking gun stuff. Brett Kavanaugh's "metaphysical" brother was involved in a car accident with a tipster three weeks before his tip (driving a Lexus in Van Nuys), a bunch more stuff about who Brett was reincarnated from and some seriously concerning allegations of Satanism and scientology.....yeah real good stuff.

#118 in the first tranche sounded really interesting (she claimed she was at the party where the alleged assault occurred) until she got to the part where she claimed she was being permanently and regularly being harmed by wireless radiation being emitted by the man who lives in the apartment above hers.

#13 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 08:45 PM | Reply

I think it probably IS all 4500 and then some. There are 27 files and each one has at least 300 tips in it.

#14 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-05 08:49 PM | Reply

Judge Keg is an alkie predator.

www.npr.org

#15 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-08-05 08:59 PM | Reply

I don't have a problem with the whitehouse being notified of the tips.

I have a HUGE PROBLEM with the fbi allowing the whitehouse deciding which to not investigate.

#16 | Posted by Nixon at 2022-08-06 09:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good lord, Trump and his psychopathy has corrupted the entirety of the federal government. It will take decades to undo the damage Trump was able to wrought in only four years.
And why does Wray still have his job?
#1 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-08-04 09:56 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 1

Was 9/11 investigated properly? Thoroughly? To scientific and logical satisfaction? There isn't a repeated behavior of debunking "conspiracy nonsense" and denying FOIA requests to cover up the deliberate weaponization of this nation to invade the ME?

You better get a rose-colored body condom at this pace. The rot has been ongoing since before Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered.

#17 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2022-08-06 02:23 PM | Reply

Nixon, I dare you to follow the link I provided and find a single Credible tip that wasn't investigated. It's fascinating stuff, really.

#18 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 07:20 AM | Reply

Nixon, I dare you to follow the link I provided and find a single Credible tip that wasn't investigated. It's fascinating stuff, really.

#19 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 07:21 AM | Reply

Here's the real issue and the bottom line is that the FBI did not do a thorough job investigating Kavanaugh:


Whitehouse: Is it also true that, in that supplemental B.I. [background investigation], the FBI took direction from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?

Wray: So, it is true that, consistent with the longstanding process that we have had going all the way back to at least the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and continue to follow currently under the Biden administration, that in a limited supplemental B.I., we take direction from the requesting entity, which in this case was the White House, as to what follow-up they want. That's the direction we've followed. That's the direction we've consistently followed throughout the decades, frankly. You asked specifically about who and what?

Whitehouse: Yeah. I said, Is it true?

Wray: It is true as to the who. I'm not sure, as I sit here, whether it's also true as to the "what questions," but it is true as to the who we interviewed.

Regardless of whether or not it's true that the FBI has a policy of taking direction "from the requesting entity," it would seem that if an individual is up for a job in which he will have the power to affect millions of people's lives, and has been accused of engaging in horrible acts, the most powerful investigative body in the country should take a more active role. Particularly when the "requesting entity" is the Donald Trump White House, which had a vested interest in not probing allegations of sexual misconduct, given who was running the joint.


www.vanityfair.com

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-07 08:21 AM | Reply

Kavanaugh was the most heavily scrutinized justice in our history.

The allegations were absurd and so vague that they were next to impossible to investigate. Nobody with half a brain took Swetnick or Liar Ford seriously.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-07 09:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

My favorite allegation was that he roughed up the woman he was dating after leaving a bar together. Of course given the timeframe that was alleged he happened to be dating another judge at the time and she was outraged when she heard of the allegation because it never happened. Not even close.

The treatment Kavanaugh received was beyond disgusting.

#22 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-07 09:51 AM | Reply

It's clear to me they Kavanaugh was a privileged prep school ------- kid. Drank too much and was an even bigger ------- when he drank.

That case was made clearly during the confirmation hearings.

Put a dick in some faces when he was a drunk 19 year old?

And the allegations that were false. How many false allegations?

Not sure but this file appears to contain a lot.

Why is a pass being given to the falsehoods?

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-07 10:07 AM | Reply

Nixon, I dare you to follow the link I provided and find a single Credible tip that wasn't investigated. It's fascinating stuff, really.

Let me repeat from Gal's link above, this time with highlights so people with little if any reading comprehension skills might discern the relevant information they obviously couldn't do based on the falling limb they've just been cut off.

Wray: I apologize in advance that it has been frustrating for you. We have tried to be clear about our process. So when it comes to the tip line, we wanted to make sure that the White House had all the information we have, so when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them, and provided them to the White House -

Whitehouse: Without investigation?

Wray [long pause]: We reviewed them and then provided them to"

Whitehouse: You reviewed them for purposes of separating them from tip-line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?

Wray: Correct.

Whitehouse: Is it also true that, in that supplemental B.I. [background investigation], the FBI took direction from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?

Wray: So, it is true that, consistent with the longstanding process that we have had going all the way back to at least the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and continue to follow currently under the Biden administration, that in a limited supplemental B.I., we take direction from the requesting entity, which in this case was the White House, as to what follow-up they want. That's the direction we've followed. That's the direction we've consistently followed throughout the decades, frankly. You asked specifically about who and what?

Whitehouse: Yeah. I said, Is it true?

Wray: It is true as to the who. I'm not sure, as I sit here, whether it's also true as to the "what questions," but it is true as to the who we interviewed.

www.vanityfair.com

So the actual answer to your question is FBI independently investigated NONE OF THE TIP ALLEGATIONS and if you'd been diligent enought to simply read what was placed before your eyes you wouldn't have needed to go down a meaningless rabbit hole pointing out that many of the total amount of tips weren't credible. But some certainly were and they were not investigated, period.

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 10:33 AM | Reply

I think you are expecting something of the FBI that is beyond the purpose or authority of the FBI.

First and foremost, the mandate of the FBI is to enforce Federal Law. There were no allegations that Federal Law was. There were allegations that state law was violated, and those allegations were forwarded to Maryland authorities. The FBI does not investigate sexual assaults.

Secondly, the FBI conducts background investigations for federal employees, usually for purposes of security clearances. This is done as a service to whichever department has requested it, and the scope would be dictated by that department and various precedents and procedures.

Sounds to me like the FBI did their job. Apparently, everything they gave the White House was also given to the Semate Judiciary Committee, so unless something was "flushed" this is a non-story.

#25 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:02 AM | Reply

Which tips weren't investigated?

#26 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:04 AM | Reply

I remember at the time a number of people who knew Kavanaugh and called in tips said they weren't contacted. Wray's testimony certainly explains why.

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-07 11:09 AM | Reply

Also keep in mind In this clip Wray is speaking only about the "Supplemental BI"., not the full extent of the FBI investigative work concerning Kavanaugh, both before and after the Supplemental BI. What that means is that Kavanaughnalready has an FBI file including information from previous beckground investigations (I think this was his 7th background investigation) . So the Supplemental BI is supposed to cover the time period since the previous BI was completed.

The FBI also did Follow up investigation at the request of the White House and SenateJudiciaty Committee, but that isn't what Wray is discussing in this clip.

If you are suggesting there were credible allegations were not investigated at all, I say that's unlikely, as there were so many eyes on this, we would have heard about it before now.

#28 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:13 AM | Reply

Which people and what did they allege? Not arguing here, I'm truly curious because this was a story I followed pretty closely for personal reasons.

#29 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:17 AM | Reply

Who would and why would any investigation be done by the Trump WH and Admin? There's never been any intention shown to investigate anything other than political opponents by the previous WH. There was only one outcome, appoint Kavanaugh. Your position appears to me to be somewhere between naive and oblivious wrt demonstrated behavior.

Rather than try and have others proves that no investigation was done (a negative), can you show that any investigation was done?

#30 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-07 11:22 AM | Reply

www.nbcnews.com

Ok so here is an article supporting your assertation. Definitely shows there were people that weren't contacted, (at the time) but barely hints at what these people had to offer as far as specific credible information.

Sounds like a good job for an investigative reporter, like Ronan Farrow, but since nothing has materialized in almost four years, I doubt there is any there there.

#31 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:26 AM | Reply

www.newyorker.com

Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer reporting at the time.

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-07 11:31 AM | Reply

www.newsweek.com

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-07 11:33 AM | Reply

#30 the purpose of the background investigation is to assist the prospective employer/appointed (White House) in determining whether the prospective employee/appointee is a suitable candidate, PRIOR to the appointment. Apparently the WH was satisfied that he was.

Once he was appointed was made, those who opposed (SJC) it launched their own investigation, and the FBI assisted them as well. The SJC set the parameters for that investigation.

I watched all the hearings. The investigation was exhaustive FBI interviewed a lot of people. At some point they needed to draw a line, and there is a difference of opinion as to where that line should be drawn. I get it.

Short of witness coming forward who was AT the parties where the alleged assaults took place, or new allegations of a different assault, I don't think there was much left to explore that would change the outcome.

#34 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:38 AM | Reply

#33 Good piece by Farrow. Note that the Ramirez incident WAS investigated by the FBI, once they found out about it, which was long after the "Supplemental BI" was completed.

#35 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:46 AM | Reply

Miranda, I can't believe how mendacious you are regarding your own words. Let me repeat them to you:

Nixon, I dare you to follow the link I provided and find a single Credible tip that wasn't investigated.
According to FBI Director Wray (and now you, saying that the FBI's mandate wasn't to "investigate" merely provide "background") none of the tips were independently investigated by the FBI.

Short of witness coming forward who was AT the parties where the alleged assaults took place, or new allegations of a different assault, I don't think there was much left to explore that would change the outcome.

You didn't follow it closely enough evidently.

The Women Who Have Accused Brett Kavanaugh

Deborah Ramirez - ... Ms. Ramirez said, she saw a penis in front of her face. One man told her to "kiss it," she told The New Yorker. As she moved to push it away, she said, she saw Judge Kavanaugh standing, laughing and pulling up his pants. Raised a Catholic, Ms. Ramirez was "embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated," she said.

Ms. Ramirez said she told few people about the episode at the time. She and Judge Kavanaugh were not close friends, but they crossed paths, including at Yale and at a wedding in 1997.

More than 2,200 Yale women have signed a letter of support for Ms. Ramirez; a similar letter has been circulating among Yale men.

A lawyer for Ms. Ramirez has written to the Judiciary Committee saying that his client would be "willing to cooperate" and tell her story under certain terms.

www.nytimes.com

...her attorneys provided a list of 20 witnesses believed to have additional information that could corroborate her account. Ramirez's attorneys previously have said they don't believe the FBI contacted any of those people.

"We are deeply disappointed by this failure," Pittard wrote. "We can only conclude that the FBI - or those controlling its investigation - did not want to learn the truth behind Ms. Ramirez's allegations."

www.denverpost.com

This was just one credible witness with 20 corroborating witnesses that the FBI never followed up with. How many more fit this same pattern?

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 11:52 AM | Reply

Note that the Ramirez incident WAS investigated by the FBI, once they found out about it, which was long after the "Supplemental BI" was completed.

BS. She was spoken to during the confirmation hearings "pause" period during which the public was told that credible tips would be investigated. The Denver Post link above confirms this because it predates the continuation of the committee hearings and ultimate vote for Kav's ascension.

Why do you insist on lying so much Miranda? The truth is right there for everyone to see.

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 11:57 AM | Reply

Although I didn't quote it, the VF article I linked to tell included part of the exchange between Whitehouse and Wray regarding the tip line.

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-07 01:30 PM | Reply

www.theguardian.com

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-07 01:46 PM | Reply

www.cnbc.com

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-07 01:48 PM | Reply

Tony,
You just don't understand the terminology. I do because of my work history,

The "gotcha" clip quoted above, Wray is SPECIFICALLY talking about the "LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL BI". The LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL BI is conducted for the President's use in the vetting process. It is completed BEFORE the nomination, therefore before the hearings, BEFORE Debbie Ramirez came forward.

This is how it works:
Before a person is hired or appointed to a sensitive position in the Federal Government, a INITIAL background investigation is completed. The level of thoroughness depends on their classification level. Mine was 300 pages long. The FBI contacted every previous employer, every roommate and significant other, neighbors about 3 houses in each direction back to childhood and my teachers back to elementary school. It was 380 pages long, and my security clearance wasn't all that special.

At various times, for various reasons, a SUPPLEMENTAL BI is conducted. Kavanaugh had several of these (I read 7). These are LIMITED in scope, and generally go back only as far as where the last one left off unless there is a specific reason to make a deeper dive farther back in history.

I can't say for sure exactly what the scope of the LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL BI was, but it would have been completed for the purpose of advising the President about his nominee, therefore completed BEFOREe the hearings began. After a week pause they did more investigating into Debbie Ramirez, but that was essentially a NEW investigation at the direction of the SJC, and outside the scope of the LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL BI that Wray was referring to in the quote above.

#41 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 04:55 PM | Reply

On further review, I misspoke. The term "LIMITED" Supplemental BI has been used to describe the investigation that occurred after the pause.

When I read those terms I was relating them to my own experience in how those terms were used in the scope of my employment. Technically all Supplemental BI's are "limited" because they have a particular limited scope, but I concede that during the Kavanaugh investigation they were using that descriptor to apply to the later investigation ordered by Trump at the request of the SJC.

#42 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 05:22 PM | Reply

This was just one credible witness with 20 corroborating witnesses that the FBI never followed up with. How many more fit this same pattern?

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:
Time for someone to subpoena the records. If the names of the corroborating persons were provided to the FBI, they would have some record of who was notified, what they decided to do about it (or not do about it) and why.

You may be right, I may be wrong, I just feel it is very unlikely after all these years that there is any smoking gun there. If there was, all the people raising hell about Kavanaugh would have found it by now. Maybe there is and it will pop out as an "October surprise".

#43 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 05:32 PM | Reply

#41

Understand. But the issue has never been what was done BEFORE the allegations in question became known, it was what was done in regards to investigating those allegations through the accusers, not based on Kavanaugh's denials of them.

Whitehouse: You reviewed them for purposes of separating them from tip-line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?

Wray: Correct.

Whitehouse: Is it also true that, in that supplemental B.I. [background investigation], the FBI took direction from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?

Wray: So, it is true that, consistent with the longstanding process that we have had going all the way back to at least the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and continue to follow currently under the Biden administration, that in a limited supplemental B.I., we take direction from the requesting entity, which in this case was the White House, as to what follow-up they want. That's the direction we've followed. That's the direction we've consistently followed throughout the decades, frankly. You asked specifically about who and what?

Do you think for one nanosecond that the Trump White House wanted or directed the FBI to use every means necessary to get to the bottom of credible allegations regarding Kavanaugh's conduct revealed during the hearings?

Of course nothing of substance was done during the "Supplemental BI" because that was the POINT! Ramirez' questioning was a part of a SI, correct? If that is true, we know that there was no substantive follow up nor even questioning of corroborating witnesses to her allegations because those people were never contacted. Hence, the Supplemental BI as it regards her, was simply worthless, ostensibly because that's what the White House ordered it to be.

Do you realize you've undermined your own assertions in this thread? You went out of your way to claim that the FBI investigated credible tips. They didn't. They had no power to do so unless ordered to by the White House - who told them whom they could talk to and what questions they could ask. That's not an investigation, it's a cover up. You of all people should recognize that.

And the larger point in regards to BI's is that no other SCOTUS nominee faced credible allegations of disqualifying conduct in decades but for Kavanaugh, so when Wray says that former Presidents followed the same protocols with the FBI he was ignoring that none of the other candidates' had the number of or types of serious allegations that Kavanaugh faced. If BI's hadn't uncovered the credible accusers, then they're work was both incomplete and useless in determining whether or not the accuser's claims had validity without also speaking to the dozens of available corroborators they refused to interview on orders from the White House.

#44 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 05:34 PM | Reply

I just feel it is very unlikely after all these years that there is any smoking gun there. If there was, all the people raising hell about Kavanaugh would have found it by now. Maybe there is and it will pop out as an "October surprise".

The people and information was available back then! Nothing's changed since. If anything more people have come forward corroborating the details of egregious actions committed by a young Kavanaugh. Here's a story from January this year adding more detail and credibility to allegations against Kavanaugh:

Then a man came forward, Max Stier, who reporter a similar incident (as Ramirez). Stier was a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale and then went on to Stanford Law School. Stier clerked for Justice David Souter, practiced law at the firm of Williams & Connolly, and in 2001 started a nonprofit organization called "Partnership for Public Service," the aim of which was to improve the effectiveness of the federal government.

Stier said "he was passing by a suite in Lawrance Hall [a Yale dormitory] freshman year when he saw Kavanaugh with his pants pulled down and his penis exposed. Kavanaugh was leaning up against a wall, and Tracy Harmon, [another classmate and a close friend Deborah Ramirez's,] seemingly drunk, was being led over to him by two classmates, her hand placed on his penis." Tracy Harmon Joyce (her married name) has said she does not remember this event. Given her state of inebriation, she and Max Stier could both be telling the truth if she was blackout drunk, a state in which two classmates would easily be able to lead her to Kavanaugh's penis.

verdict.justia.com

Kavanaugh was a self-admitted "blackout" drunk. The fact that he has no recollection of his alleged conduct should have been dismissed for what it obviously was - the unabashed white privilege of an entitled brat who was inscenced anyone tried to hold him responsible for his own conduct as a younger man. He sees himself as a master of the universe that needs not answer to anyone who he deems beneath him.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 05:46 PM | Reply

"I just feel it is very unlikely after all these years that there is any smoking gun there."
You've already decided there isn't one.

"If there was, all the people raising hell about Kavanaugh would have found it by now."
See? You've already decided there isn't one. And now you're explaining to yourself why there can't be one.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-07 05:59 PM | Reply

-Kavanaugh was a self-admitted "blackout" drunk.

I blacked out a couple times during college from drinking.

Anybody else?

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-07 06:10 PM | Reply

Kavanaugh was blacking out regularly in high school, long before it was legal for him to drink. His best friend in high school later wrote a novel about their experiences after he finally went through extended rehab and dried out.

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 06:18 PM | Reply

" His best friend in high school later wrote a novel about their experiences after he finally went through extended rehab and dried out."

And if Kavanaugh had just admitted he had a problem, then maybe he'd have the high moral fiber expected of a Judge.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-07 07:01 PM | Reply

I blacked out a couple times during college from drinking.
Anybody else?
#47 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Did you lie about it on your job interviews?
Would you hire someone who lied about it?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-07 07:02 PM | Reply

It is quite possible that both incidents happened as Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez described them. The problem is there don't seem to be any corroborating FACT witnesses, as in people who were actually THERE and saw or heard what happened. It comes down to a he said/she said.

The "corroborating witnesses" I recall were people who the victims TOLD about the incident. That doesn't make it true. The "potential witnesses" also included people who spoke about Kavanaugh's general behavior as a young man. That wouldn't prove the victim's allegations either.

I watched the hearings in their entirety because I am very familiar with the neighborhood where this allegedly occurred, and have friends in common with Ms. Ford. I wanted to come to my own conclusion. I was unable to, in part, because Ms. Ford was never questioned with any real specificity. I don't recall all the details, but one thing in particular I wanted to know was how she got to the party from the pool and how she got to her house after she ran out of the house alone? These places were not within easy walking distance of one another, and there were no payphones nearby. Who gave her a ride and what do they recall?

#51 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 07:05 PM | Reply

Anybody else?

I did, once. 17, not college. Black Velvet.

I didn't do anything wrong, but I had to ask about it. Which was enough to not do it again.

I've never drank BV again, either. Which has definitely not been a loss.

#52 | Posted by horstngraben at 2022-08-07 07:13 PM | Reply

Miranda, even you understand common sense and deductive reasoning. Kavanaugh's nomination incidents veracity should have never been based on a standard of beyond any reasonable doubt. At maximum, a preponderance of evidence should have sufficed to disqualify him from being elevated to the highest court any lawyer in America can rise to. I just showed you a direct eyewitness that didn't see Ramirez, but did see another woman subjected to the identical behavior by Kavanaugh that Ramirez claimed happened in the same identical place and manner.

As anyone involved in the criminal justice system should understand, when a potential witness claims not to have a memory of specific events that does not mean the events didn't occur. To many, such admissions simply means that the person being questioned does not want to reveal the truth because of the consequences they'd bring upon themselves for doing so. Also as a LEO, you should have concluded that some of the allegations levied against Kavanaugh were criminal and should have been forwarded to the FBI's criminal division or local/state LEO where certain charges were still possible under statutory time restraints.

The most glaring omission of the investigation was Kavanaugh's former best friend who basically told investigators that he didn't remember any details for those times even though his novel was full of events corroborated by Kavanaugh's own diary entries. Putting him under oath in concert with his own novel would have likely yielded quite a jog in his memory. Along with the story Blasey-Ford told of seeing him again later in the summer after the alleged assault took place with said friend in the room with Kav and her. She said he worked at a local grocery store and when she was there with her mother, he saw her and begrudgingly acknowledged her presence, seemingly not well as Ford told the story. This indeed was corroborated by Mark Judge's (just found his name) own book.

#53 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 07:40 PM | Reply

"I was going to the Potomac Village Safeway, this is the one on the corner of Falls and River Road," she said. "And I was with my mother and I was a teenager, so I wanted her to go in one door and me the other. I chose the wrong door because the door I chose was the one where Mark Judge - it looked like he was working there and arranging the shopping carts."

"I said hello to him, and his face was white and very uncomfortable saying hello back," she continued. "And we had previously been friendly at the times that we saw each other over the previous two years. . . . I wouldn't characterize him as not friendly, he was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me. He looked a little bit ill."

"How long did this occur after the incident?" Durbin asked.

"I would estimate six to eight weeks," she replied.

In one passage, beginning on Page 92, Judge describes his time working at a grocery store in the context of his drinking problem. Emphasis added.

It was the summer before senior year, and by now, even though I wasn't drinking every day, I was completely hooked. Going a week without getting drunk was unthinkable. I was spending between four and seven nights with the gang, either at a party or at O'Rourke's.

Of course, alcoholics also get into all kinds of trouble because of their drinking. When they supersede their own tolerance, they suffer catastrophic hangovers. These can make getting through the day an Olympic event. This was never more evident to me than when, to raise money for football camp, I spent a few weeks working as a bag boy at the local supermarket.

My job was simple. People would leave their grocery baskets against a rail in front of the store, then pull their cars around. I would then sling their groceries in the car, sometimes get a small tip, and then wait for the next car.
It was a nightmare. Invariably I would be hungover - or still drunk - when I got to work at seven in the morning, and I spent most of the first hour just trying to hold myself together
.

Elsewhere in the book, Judge describes one of his acquaintances at the time, someone named "Bart O'Kavanaugh," who vomited in a car after a party.

www.washingtonpost.com

To my knowledge, Judge was never placed under oath and asked details about his book and the barely pseudonymed Bart O'Kavanaugh.

#54 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 07:40 PM | Reply

In case anyone is interested, here is a map of the relevant area. The pool is at Columbia country Club. Blasey said the party was in Bethesda, which is in the area near the Country Club, but there is also a theory it was at "Tim's" house in Rockville. Blasey-Ford's home was on the left side of the map in Potomac (I know the exact addresses of the houses but deliberately moved the pointers a short distance away so as not to dox anybody.) Not walkable. It occurred to me that Blasey-Ford feigned ignorance of the location and how she got from one point to another because she was protecting someone who didn't want to get involved. Possibly Tim.

www.google.com-77.2127906/@39.0538443,-77.1604949,12.35z/data=!4m10!4m9!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c941d1898db3:0x98c2affa4ac538f7!2m2!1d-
77.0824282!2d38.993912!1m0!1m0!3e0

#55 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 07:45 PM | Reply

"Kavanaugh's nomination incidents veracity should have never been based on a standard of beyond any reasonable doubt."

This.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-07 07:45 PM | Reply

"It is quite possible that both incidents happened as Ms. Ford and Ms. Ramirez described them"

Let's say that's true.
Is that enough for you to say Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-07 07:46 PM | Reply

Kavanaugh was lying about the meaning of Renate Alumnus, FFFF, and Devil's Triangle
For me that's more than enough to say he is unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-08-07 07:49 PM | Reply

#55

Another theory was that it was Mark Judge's grandmother's house, that was 1.1 mile away from the country club.

And there are other glaring inconsistencies (read: LIES) in Kavanaugh's sworn testimony:

Brett Kavanaugh Testimony: Three Inconsistencies the F.B.I. Investigation Could Address

#59 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 08:13 PM | Reply

-I've never drank BV again, either. Which has definitely not been a loss.

No it isn't. I did it twice. But it's been over 30 years ago.

Does anybody think it should matter?

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2022-08-07 08:28 PM | Reply

"At maximum, a preponderance of evidence should have sufficed to disqualify him from being elevated to the highest court any lawyer in America can rise to"

Preponderance is 51/49. I'm seeing 35/35 with a big hole of who the hell knows in the middle. 30 years later, don't know where it happened, nobody saw nuthin, kinda hard to get to 51 with that.

"I just showed you a direct eyewitness that didn't see Ramirez, but did see another woman subjected to the identical behavior by Kavanaugh that Ramirez claimed happened in the same identical place and manner"

The woman he named said she didn't recall anything like that ever occurring.

"As anyone involved in the criminal justice system should understand, when a potential witness claims not to have a memory of specific events that does not mean the events didn't occur. To many, such admissions simply means that the person being questioned does not want to reveal the truth because of the consequences they'd bring upon themselves for doing so."

Absolutely, but we can't proceed without evidence. We have a right to due process and a presumption of innocence in this country.

"Also as a LEO, you should have concluded that some of the allegations levied against Kavanaugh were criminal and should have been forwarded to the FBI's criminal division or local/state LEO where certain charges were still possible under statutory time restraints."
I'm not aware of any allegations of Federal Crimes that would fall under FBI jurisdiction. The sexual assault allegations were forwarded to Montgomery County Maryland (a very blue county).

"The most glaring omission of the investigation was Kavanaugh's former best friend who basically told investigators that he didn't remember any details for those times even though his novel was full of events corroborated by Kavanaugh's own diary entries."

Key word, novel = fiction. Not evidentiary unless there was something specifically pertaining to the assault.

"Putting him under oath in concert with his own novel would have likely yielded quite a jog in his memory."

Invoking the 5th (since he was an aleged codefendant) would have ended any questioning. The only chance of him helping the investigation would be to give him immunity and flip him....but then his motive would be suspect.

"Along with the story Blasey-Ford told of seeing him again later in the summer after the alleged assault took place with said friend in the room with Kav and her. She said he worked at a local grocery store and when she was there with her mother, he saw her and begrudgingly acknowledged her presence, seemingly not well as Ford told the story. This indeed was corroborated by Mark Judge's (just found his name) own book.

Assault didn't happen at Safeway, no relevance.

I spent a summer hanging with the Columbia Country Club crowd a couple years before this occurred. The Gtown Prep guys were priveleged, obnoxious punks. This is a community where the parents leave the kids home for weeks at a time with the keys to the Mercedes, a few thousand dollars and a stocked liquor cabinet. The maid cleans up before they get back from Europe. Wild parties every weekend. Had my own me-too moment with a guy from a very prominant family. That's one reason it was personal to me. But I don't believe you can end someones career based on a he said/she said, or that you can tip the balance to 51 based on who seems more "credible" to your own sensibilities.

#61 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 08:35 PM | Reply

Here's an unrolled thread with photos of both Mark Judge's grandmother's house and Squi's house (which was listed in Kav's diary for Thursday July 1 for comparison sake: threadreaderapp.com

#62 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 08:36 PM | Reply

But I don't believe you can end someones career based on a he said/she said, or that you can tip the balance to 51 based on who seems more "credible" to your own sensibilities.

I believe the way Kavanaugh treated the committee members who questioned him with open physical and verbal contempt proved that he didn't possess the judicial temperament that should be required from any SCOTUS judge. The committee didn't go out looking for people to question his worthiness initially, the witnesses volunteered to come forward. Every SCOTUS nominee has detractors brought forth by the opposing parties, but no nominee ever reacted with the scorn, grievance, and outright victimhood that Brett Kavanaugh emitted and embraced.

And Kavanaugh's career would not have ended had he not been elevated to the SCOTUS. He still would have retained his federal judgeship.

#63 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 08:44 PM | Reply

"Another theory was that it was Mark Judge's grandmother's house, that was 1.1 mile away from the country club."

Hadn't heard that one, will take a look....still Really far from Blasey house, how did she get home?

As for Devils triangle, that WAS a drinking game, like quarters or beer pong, very common in that area. Probably influenced by the documentary by that name about the Bermuda Triangle at the time. I never heard it used as a sexual reference until 2018, when they trotted out the "urban dictionary".

I'll take a look at the other "glaring inconsistencies". Got to go now.

#64 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 08:46 PM | Reply

Ill look at the Judge and Squi thread a little later too. Have you seen the one about Tim Gaudettes house? Based on that one I was thinking maybe Tim (who was her boyfriend) was there and she withheld his connection because she wanted to protect him from involvement, then when the story snowballed, she couldn't turn back from that lie. That is really the only plausible explanation I can come up with for the "I have no idea where it happened, when it happened or how I got home" holes in her story.

#65 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 08:51 PM | Reply

#61

Damn Miranda, do I really have to explain to you that the grocery story accompanied by the book admission would support Ford's credibility as it regards her other testimony? (The book was an autobiographical assignment given Judge by the person in charge of his sobriety care. The "novel" aspect only came into play so as not to implicate real people in the actions he wrote about.) Judge can't credibly say that he doesn't remember about events he wrote a book about, can he?

Same thing with Stier's testimony - it supports Ramirez' account even without corroboration from the actual victim. The victim was self-admittedly inebriated, Stier wasn't and has no reason to fabricate the events. Do I really have to lay this out to you? The salient fact is that Stier saw Kavanaugh stuffing his unit back into his pants in the middle of a room filled with other drunk people. In what world does that first person account become meaningless in supporting the credibility of a person recounting the identical events as they happened to her? Kav can't say "I've never done something like that in my life" when an unimpeachable witness saw him do that very thing. What defense is Kav going to have from Stier combined with Ramirez? Now it's 2 against one.

You keep acting like witnesses should be tripping over each other to go on the record here. Of course no Yale graduate would want to involve themselves in a controversy like this because they know what'd happen with their lives - just like Dr. Ford had to go into veritable hiding for 18 months afterward. And Americans can understand these implications as well and draw their own conclusions form those willing to go on the record while others feign memory loss. IMO people at Yale don't make up stories 30 years down the road about events that didn't happen.

#66 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 09:05 PM | Reply

Maybe I'm missing something, but all the Safeway story proves is that she knew Mark worked at Safeway. Probably every kid in Potomac knew he worked there. Anybody who didn't know probably read it in his book..Maybe she did. . There were quite a few inconsistencies/lies alleged about her testimony as well, but she wasn't questioned or asked to explain.

I agree the book is probably is biographical but by calling it a novel he can backpedal anything in it as fiction, so it isn't evidentiary.

As for Stier, again, it comes down to one persons word against another, and "why would he lie" isn't enough to overcome presumption of innocence. Particularly with no cooperating victim, and not a single other person in the "room full of people" to corroborate.

I recognize that witnesses may not want to come forward. That's how due process works in the real world. I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm saying there isn't enough evidence, and the presumption of innocence is one of out poor bedrock principles.

What do you think about the woman who claims Biden raped her in the Capitol ? Why would SHE make something like that up after all these years? Are you really as inclined to believe women when the politics are reversed?

#67 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 10:17 PM | Reply

Blasey Ford named four witnesses. None of them recall the incident.

Her friend Leyland later said that she never attended a party where Kavanaugh was present with or without Ford. Further, she said that at that time she and Ford were best friends and told each other everything. According to her Ford absolutely would have told her about it.

Ford told a number of easily provable lies leading up to her "testimony".

And that was the Dem's "best" witness. This whole thing is stupid.

#68 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-07 10:23 PM | Reply

Again, you're missing the importance of the Safeway story. The details of the encounter given by Ford - detailing where she encountered Mark, what his job was, how he looked at the time - dovetail completely with the account Judge wrote about himself, including the exact timeframe and his usual inebriated condition when he did work there. Judge only worked at the store for a short time that particular summer and Ford nailed the date 30 years later because it happened within the timeline surrounding her assault. Your dismissal shows that you don't know the details making this identification not just something anyone could have known. It bolsters Ford's credibility as a truth teller. You're not seeing that?

And Stier's account was in seeing Kavanaugh do something illicit. So was Ramirez'. They are both eyewitnesses. They both corroborate the other. Good lord, you act as though multiple witnesses with identical memories of similar events don't trump one witness - the accused - saying that nothing ever happened. And Stier's participants have never been queried about memories of his account, only the victim as I've read so far.

And the biggest point you seem to be ignoring is that the named witnesses aren't on the record saying the events mentioned never happened, they only claim not to remember them happening at the given times and places - again, a convenient dodge to avoid perjury accusations when a person doesn't want to admit what happened. And almost all of Kav's witnesses were themselves drinking at the time of the events. Stier was stone cold sober and if you read the excerpt about him you would have found this:

According to Michael Lewis, author of The Fifth Risk, "if you could somehow organize the entire population into a single line, all 350 million people, ordered not by height or weight or age but by each citizen's interest in the federal government, and Donald Trump loitered somewhere near one end of it, Max Stier would occupy the other." Stier, in other words, is a serious and credible individual.
Point being, Stier would have been unimpeachable and Kavanaugh is defending himself while fully acknowledging "he likes beer" and often drank to excess. Who do you think any rational person is going to believe especially when one person has no earthly reason to lie about the other?

As it regards the accusations leveled at Biden, I again use common sense and none patterns of behaviors. The area the accuser claimed to have been assaulted offers no places for intimacy - the hallway was wide open and well traveled. Joe Biden had no history of that type of behavior, that works in his favor and against Kav's in his cases. Biden also travels home each and every evening when he was in Washington. Just when and where would he have time for one-offs based on his known schedule of activities and travels? And the accusation would certainly have been stronger if more than one person recounted similar behavior over the 50 years Biden has been working on Capitol Hill.

And why would you ask me about one person's uncorroborated allegation just because it was against a Democrat while ignoring the multiple allegations and witnesses - including himself - to Kav's drunken behavior and activities where his chief defense is that he doesn't remember events happening, as he's left a trail of blackout drunk incidents in his wake?

#69 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 10:45 PM | Reply

Just looked up Steir, the alleged witness of the 2nd alleged incident. He never spoke publicly, or talked to investigators. His story came out third hand from a pair of reporters who confirmed it through two "unnamed officials". He didn't even speak to THEM directly as far as I can tell. Also, he was a member of Bill Clinton's defense team for the Impeachment, while Kavanaugh worked on the other side for Ken Starr. So there is some history there to consider.

#70 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 10:48 PM | Reply

Has the FBI found out who paid off all of the drunken gang rapist's debt yet?

#71 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-08-07 10:49 PM | Reply

Yes, I am missing the point of Safeway story. The idea that telling the truth about one thing means you are telling the truth about ANY other thing is just absurd. The Safeway story didn't corroborate her timeline, She had no idea what year the incident occurred, how old she was or whether it was before or after she got her drivers license. The Safeway story was where they GOT the timeline, because it turned out Judge only worked there one summer.

#72 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:01 PM | Reply

#70

Geeze you couldn't be more wrong if you tried:

Beyond offering new information on Ramirez's account, the report is resurfacing a public debate: Did Kavanaugh repeatedly lie to Congress?

The Saturday report retraced Kavanaugh's confirmation process, detailing a fast-tracked FBI investigation failed to interrogate more than two dozen potential witnesses in Ramirez's case, one that ultimately gave Republican senators enough cover to confirm Kavanaugh. It also publicly recounts allegations by Max Stier, CEO of the nonpartisan Washington, DC, nonprofit Center for Presidential Transition, who says he saw Kavanaugh push his penis into the hand of a female student at Yale during a separate incident that didn't involve Ramirez. Stier talked to the FBI about his allegation, but they did not investigate the matter. The New York Times updated its story to point out that the alleged victim did not wish to comment, and that friends say she did not remember the incident.

www.vox.com

While I give you the history, most lawyers who faithfully believe in the law and government do not lie for political reasons that have nothing to do with them personally.

You act as though it's not already established that Kavanaugh likely lied under oath during his confirmation hearings as well.

During the confirmation process, an NBC report detailed communication between Kavanaugh, his team, and college friends to rebut Deborah Ramirez's claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at Yale, before she had come forward with allegations in an article in the New Yorker.

NBC's reporting was in direct contradiction to Kavanaugh's testimony, in which he angrily denied the multiple allegations of sexual misconduct brought against him and said he learned of Ramirez's claim through the original New Yorker story:

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez's allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: ... In the New Yorker.

However, two friends of Kavanaugh's - Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage - were in contact with the Supreme Court nominee and his team, according to text messages obtained by NBC: In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with "Brett's guy," and also with "Brett," who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: "I had to send it to Brett's team too." (same link as above)

#73 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 11:05 PM | Reply

Multiple witnesses do tend to trump a single witness, but you are forgetting that for each allegation, there was ONE person saying it happened and MULTIPLE witnesses who were present and said it DIDNT happen.

#74 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:11 PM | Reply

The Safeway story didn't corroborate her timeline, She had no idea what year the incident occurred, how old she was or whether it was before or after she got her drivers license.

Although Ford didn't recall the exact dates - Kavanaugh's own diary entries DID confirm exactly when the alleged events took place. You don't know that?

Kavanaugh's initial dismissal of such a gathering - because he claimed he didn't do them on weekdays because he was so busy - fell apart the second his diary became public. Ford recounted that the group of boys were heading over to their friend Squi's for another kegger later that evening, and the group moved from the country club to a house prior to the other party. Kav's diary confirmed all of this and proved his first response wasn't true.

And with the date known - July 1 - Ford's remembrance of seeing Judge 6-8 weeks later bulls-eyed the short time period Judge worked at the store. Telling the Safeway story goes directly to Ford's credibility as a witness because her account is both unique and corroborated - it was something she couldn't make up, based on the actual facts and proven details she recounts.

For someone claiming to know this case, you don't know this case very well. Kavanaugh has never been a credible witness as it regards his own actions as a younger man, and anyone with sentience can see this from a mile away. That doesn't mean everything said against him is true, but it does place his denials into the category of being very questionable.

#75 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 11:19 PM | Reply

Ramirez's story was almost at stupid as Swetnick's.

#76 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-08-07 11:20 PM | Reply

Credibility and history is certainly a factor but not enough to ever "know" who is lying. Almost everybody lies at some point or another, and the more "credible" you are the easier it is to get away with it.

I know Tara Reade was lying. Not because Biden was credible, not because she was a known liar. Neither of those two factors proves what happened in that hallway. I know she is lying because of the EVIDeNCe, because I know that hallway. It is hundreds of feet long and straight. You can see forever and hear every footstep echo. It would be very unusual to find yourself alone in that hallway , especially in the afternoon ... ..

BUT, using your reasoning, how many Capitol Staffers would come forward against a Senator with 25 years of seniority? Maybe they saw it, but didn't realiE what was going on? Or He could be like Cosby and have a dozen victims before one comes forward. I don't think that is the case, but using YOUR reasoning, why couldn't it be?

#77 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:25 PM | Reply

said it DIDNT happen.

Go back again. Almost none of them say the events didn't happen. They say they have no memory or don't remember them happening as recounted by other witnesses. Big difference.

What Yale graduate wants to admit to the world that they actively were a part of the activities now claimed to have involved them and a SCOTUS nominee when they were younger?

The New York Times updated its story to point out that the alleged victim (that Stiers witnessed) did not wish to comment, and that friends say she did not remember the incident.
Not remembering is not claiming that something didn't happen. You and I both know no one wants their name linked in posterity to a SCOTUS nominee's lack of personal control in college.

#78 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 11:31 PM | Reply

"Although Ford didn't recall the exact dates - Kavanaugh's own diary entries DID confirm exactly when the alleged events took place. You don't know that?"

I know Kavanaugh calendar had various events, not sure which "alleged" events you are referring to. The alleged assault? Because that date has not been positively determined as far as I know.

#79 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:33 PM | Reply

why couldn't it be?

Because it hasn't happened. It's really that simple. The time was right to get paid and no one stepped forward. Many involved in GOP politics would give MILLIONS for someone to step up and make a credible claim against Joe Biden for anything illicit. They pay people to lie, so they'll certainly pay for the truth.

Do the names Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey mean anything to you?

#80 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 11:36 PM | Reply

Because that date has not been positively determined as far as I know.

I can't have this discussion with you, you don't know the facts (and educated speculations) of this case. I just told you the story. Jones testified that on the evening of the assault Kav and his other friends talked about going to "Squi's" house for "skis" later in the evening. She didn't have any intimate knowledge of Kav's plans, but his diary indeed had that chronology written in it for Thursday July 1st in Kav's own hand after he'd already denied that he drank on weeknights during that summer.

If Ford was trying to invent a story, she's a physic because her account as to certain details no fabulist could have possibly known were verified by the diary.

And the woman who claims that the party didn't happen or didn't include Ford apparently is either mistaken or lying for Ford would have had no idea of said chronology if she hadn't been with the group and heard what she stated.

#81 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-07 11:45 PM | Reply

Go back again. Almost none of them say the events didn't happen. They say they have no memory or don't remember them happening as recounted by other witnesses. Big difference.

The witnesses making the accusation claim all these people WERE present. So their lack of recollection is meaningful if not absolute. Hard to absolutely prove a negative. You'd think there would be at least ONE other person who saw something amiss, or at least remembered Ford or Ramirez was there. Some were quite adamant that the event never happened, like Leland.

#82 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:46 PM | Reply

Yes there were questions about his credibility but there were also questions about hers. The diffrence is that she wasn't challenged about hers.

#83 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-07 11:58 PM | Reply

Some were quite adamant that the event never happened, like Leland.

Then explain how Ford knows what she knows. She wasn't around Kavanaugh and that crew, and her knowledge of the evening's events perfectly corroborate her account of when and where - including the description of the house.

You're the cop, which is more credible: A story containing details the couldn't be known unless the events took place as recounted, or someone who says the entire evening never happened although none of the other witnesses are making that claim?

You keep acting like these events are things that people WANT to have their names and reputations attached to. Are you crazy? No one - especially Yalie's who have entire lives, families, and legacies at stake - wants to have their name go down in history for torpedoing a SCOTUS nominee over the illicit behavior you witnessed 40 years ago.

Most people regardless of their politics don't want their name attached to something so sorted and controversial and I understand that completely. Neither would I ... but let me give you a true story from my own life.

I've had a friend since college that's politically opposite of myself. We used to poke each other about it, but over the years we don't really talk that much. A few years ago, I asked my ubersuccessful friend why he never got involved in local politics and he said "I always thought if I did that you'd go public with some of the ish we did when we were younger." I said "REALLY?" and laughed my butt off. I told him that unless he espoused something totally hypocritical to the person I know as a policy, I'd never say anything about what happened when we were young and didn't have families. You just don't do that to people unless you truly feel that what they did back then was harmful to others imo.

The people Kav hung out with wanted to be there in that moment. They probably didn't want Kav to stick his junk in their faces, but no one turned Kav in for sexual assault and that tells you everyone just went on with their lives. Just because what happened then is important now doesn't mean that those involved want to be drug into the mess. I'd have a convenient memory loss too.

#84 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-08 12:10 AM | Reply

I don't remember every detail from the hearings off the top of my head, so excuse me if I get a fact wrong here and there. If I recall the 1st did look like the date that most matched Christine's description of events, but the diary said they were going to Tim's for Skis, so where was Tim? Either he was there and she lied about it, or the calendar Dow not accurately establish the events of that day.

#85 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-08 12:10 AM | Reply

#83

It's a shame most of us are preconditioned beyond any ability to judge others based on logic and life experience. When Ford came forward, she stated the reasons why. She thought that Americans deserved to know about the Brett Kavanaugh she encountered years ago and what he did to her. She told her story in her own words, not with the precision of practiced rote, but with a decade's worth of inevitable memory fading. She has no reason to lie. She independently established that Kavanaugh had a drinking problem as early as high school. She gave us a window into his personality at that time, and then his own writings and yearbooks added texture to his teenage obsession with beer and drinking excessively.

What is there to challenge Ford over? The things in her life that have nothing to do with her telling about Kavanaugh are wholly meaningless because she too is a human being with flaws and a past. She's telling a simple story about a couple hours in her life. What does she need to be challenged about?

And let's not forget, after Ford came forward, those defending Kav all claimed that she wanted fame, she'd sign book deals and go on tv etc. It's been years and Ford did none of that. She's gone back to her anonymous life and hopefully is living without looking over her shoulder as she had to in the near aftermath of her testimony. You don't try to impeach witnesses who have nothing to be impeached about.

#86 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-08 12:23 AM | Reply

#85

Timmy - as written in Kav's diary - wasn't there. They were going to Tim's later. (and I've been juxtaposing Squi for Timmy.)

This is what Ford stated too. She was at an impromptu gathering after the group had finished swimming at the country club. It was simply a meet up prior to the party.

#87 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-08 12:32 AM | Reply

You say she described the house, but she has NO idea where it happened, so how is that corroborative? The calendar says they were going to Tim's house. She would know his house. If they went somewhere different, then her details don't match the calendar.

You are right, most people do t want to get mixed up in a public mess like this, but some actually do seek out that kind of attention on purpose. She also has some documented mental health issues, and memories can get shaped over the years. I had a reunion recently and found it fascinating the different recollections each of us had on certain traumatic events. I really think she is telling her truth, but not necessarily THE truth. The same applies to Kavanaugh.

#88 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-08 12:34 AM | Reply

"The calendar says they were going to Tim's house. She would know his house. If they went somewhere different, then her details don't match the calendar."

As Tony explained:

Timmy - as written in Kav's diary - wasn't there. They were going to Tim's later. (and I've been juxtaposing Squi for Timmy.)
This is what Ford stated too. She was at an impromptu gathering after the group had finished swimming at the country club. It was simply a meet up prior to the party.

#87 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-08 12:39 AM | Reply

"What is there to challenge Ford over? The things in her life that have nothing to do with her telling about Kavanaugh are wholly meaningless because she too is a human being with flaws and a past. She's telling a simple story about a couple hours in her life. What does she need to be challenged about?"

She doesn't ... ..unless you make the whole decision come down to the question of who is more credible, him or her. If you are doing that, and calling him a liar over petty inconsistencies, than her inconsistencies are just as relevant.

It's all irrelevant, IMHO, because we should judge 55 year old people based on their life accomplishments, not on what they did/didn't do or might have done when they were teenagers. That's what it all boils down to in the end.

#90 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-08 12:48 AM | Reply

She would know his house. If they went somewhere different, then her details don't match the calendar.

I don't know how to explain this other than in English. Kav's calendar corroborates Ford's recollection NOT of Timmy's - she never went there nor claimed to have gone there! Timmy's was where she was told the boys were going AFTER they left the house she was in.

Her recollection of the house where the alleged attack took place (possibly Mark Judge's grandmother's because Kav and Judge appeared to be comfortable in their surroundings hinting at some familiarity and comfort being there) matches the floorplan of Judge's grandma's - which was only a mile from the CC.

Two of the boys listed in Kav's entry as going to the later party at Timmy's were indeed at the first house, and Ford named them too in her recitation.

I read that you think she was telling her truth but maybe not THE truth, but I think we may have two different THEs that were talking about. To me, it doesn't matter as much as to whether the assault took place, but I 100% believe that the gathering happened as Ford recited and that Judge and Kav were drunk. That's what they did back then. And Kav is lying about it. To me that's THE truth. He's lying and he's compelling others who know the truth - who know how he acted then when he was drunk and belligerent - to cover for him. Look at the emails and how he and his team reportedly whipped supporters to counter allegations as they came forward. No where was it mentioned to tell the truth, or say that the truth is on our side, or "you know none of those things happened because that was not the person I was."

Just general denials and outrage for being asked to account for actions back then. That is not the profile of innocence, it's the projection of guilt.

#91 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-08 12:51 AM | Reply

because we should judge 55 year old people based on their life accomplishments, not on what they did/didn't do or might have done when they were teenagers. That's what it all boils down to in the end.

Agreed, as long as said people take responsibility for what they did while young instead of claiming everyone else is lying and that they're being persecuted over the very behavior documented in their own words and papers from that time.

The outrage is Kav's lack of acknowledging that he indeed made mistakes and hurt real people. At 55 it was more important to try and destroy accusers instead of saying,

"I'm sorry to hear these things where I might have hurt people. I don't remember doing any of this, and certainly not maliciously, but I did have a problem with drinking back then and I can't account for all the things I may have done. But going through that experience and coming out the other side has made me a far better person and a far better judge."

Had he said that - and actually showed that he meant it with half the emotion he lashed out at the Senators with - I might have supported him too. To me, that's why Kav's elevation was so egregious - he was rewarded for being a reprehensible, entitled man, born into station - if there's such a thing anymore - who could not countenance in being called to account for his own abhorrent behavior in his youth that no one in the GOP would normally tolerate - much less try to make a SCOTUS justice - especially if the nominee was a Democrat.

#92 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-08 01:02 AM | Reply

By the way, I have no objection to the investigations of the allegations being part of the hearings. My objection is that they went so off the rails with it. She told her story, he told his. Fact witnesses with actual knowledge of the events in question should have been called. Everything that came after that would never have been admissible in a criminal or civil trial, because it is not evidentiary,

#93 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-08 01:05 AM | Reply

"I just told you the story. Jones testified that on the evening of the assault Kav and his other friends talked about going to "Squi's" house for "skis" later in the evening. She didn't have any intimate knowledge of Kav's plans, but his diary indeed had that chronology written in it for Thursday July 1st in Kav's own hand after he'd already denied that he drank on weeknights during that summer."

"I don't know how to explain this other than in English. Kav's calendar corroborates Ford's recollection NOT of Timmy's - she never went there nor claimed to have gone there! Timmy's was where she was told the boys were going AFTER they left the house she was in."

So Christine said she was told they were going to Squis house next? Or Tim's.? Maybe it would help if I could see your source, I am responding based on memory only and it's been a while since the hearings.

I don't claim to know THE truth. Still too many unanswered questions for me that will never be answered. I haven't seen the Kavanaugh emails. I'm sure there's lots that has transpired since the hearings that I am unaware of.

#94 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-08 01:18 AM | Reply

I'm sorry to hear these things where I might have hurt people. I don't remember doing any of this, and certainly not maliciously, but I did have a problem with drinking back then and I can't account for all the things I may have done. But going through that experience and coming out the other side has made me a far better person and a far better judge."

Had he said that - and actually showed that he meant it with half the emotion he lashed out at the Senators with - I might have supported him too. To me, that's why Kav's elevation was so egregious - he was rewarded for being a reprehensible, entitled man, born into station - if there's such a thing anymore - who could not countenance in being called to account for his own abhorrent behavior in his youth that no one in the GOP would normally tolerate - much less try to make a SCOTUS justice - especially if the nominee was a Democrat.

#92 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-08-08 01:02 AM | FLAG:

Let's assume for the moment that Kav was guilty as charged, of the Ford and Ramirez incidents. Do you SERIOUSLY think the SJC would have accepted that and moved on? That would be like chumming a pack of sharks.

#95 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-08 01:32 AM | Reply

I'm pretty fond of the constitution but what if confirmation of a Supreme Court judges was done by voter referendum, wouldn't that be interesting.

#96 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-08-08 01:35 AM | Reply

Some were quite adamant that the event never happened, like Leland.

said it DIDNT happen.

Just like I said, no one mentioned by Ford as being at the house completely denied the event happened. They all claimed no memory or recollection, period.

In his denial of the alleged assault, Judge Kavanaugh seemed to repeatedly claim that the people Dr. Blasey said were at the house have said the gathering "didn't happen." However, other than Judge Kavanaugh, the three people who have made public statements have only said they have no memory of it.

Mark Judge

Mr. Judge, a recovering alcoholic, was a close friend and classmate of Judge Kavanaugh who is accused of being in the bedroom during the alleged assault. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Judge said he had "no memory of this alleged incident."

Leland Keyser

Judge Kavanaugh stated that Ms. Keyser, a high school friend of Dr. Blasey, "refuted" the allegations. While Ms. Keyser told the Senate Judiciary Committee through her lawyer that she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of being at a party with him, she later told The Washington Post that she believed Dr. Blasey, her own memory notwithstanding.

Patrick J. Smyth

Mr. Smyth, called P.J. by Dr. Blasey, told the committee through his lawyer that he had "no knowledge of the party in question."

In her testimony, Dr. Blasey, who also goes by her married name, Ford, said that she didn't expect that Mr. Smyth and Ms. Keyser would remember the evening since nothing remarkable happened to them there. But, she said, "Mr. Judge is a different story. I would expect that he would remember that this happened."

www.nytimes.com

As Ford noted, Smyth and Keyser would have no reason to remember what to them was an unremarkable event. They didn't witness what happened to Christine, and she never gave anyone an indication that anything happened before she left. To them it was just a one off evening of dropping over to a house owned by people they didn't know for a couple of after-swim beverages and normal teen conversation. They have no reason to remember an unremarkable event that they've never had a reason to think about since it happened.

And Leland believes Ford is telling the truth about what happened to her. Which do you think is more important based on what's known of that evening? Remember, no one is outright denying that they were there, just that they have no memory of it 30 years later because to them, nothing memorable happened.

#97 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-08 01:55 AM | Reply

#95

Kav should have been asked by the White House to step down and let them nominate another Federalist Society-approved justice. That's what's so institutionally wrong about Kav's ascension. His background lowered the bar for what should be exceptional jurist candidates regardless of their ideological leanings. Again, it would be one thing if Kav embraced his past and used it as an example of personal growth and maturity, but he did just the opposite. He downplayed addition and lashed out at those questioning his judgment by showing even worse judgment in leveling his own attacks against Senators doing their constitutionally-mandated job interviews.

We all know the GOP has a deep bench of conservative judges with impeccable credentials and records. Kav wasn't one of them. He was sort of a mediocre candidate to begin with without the baggage from his past. And we haven't even touched on his financial problems and miracle debt payoff that no one has yet accounted for. Why go to bat for him or allow him to debase the valid questioners of what he indeed did (overall conduct, not any one thing) and then tried to deny against the words and memories of others?

The GOP could have done better than Kav and still gotten everything they wanted.

#98 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-08 02:06 AM | Reply

It's all irrelevant, IMHO, because we should judge 55 year old people based on their life accomplishments, not on what they did/didn't do or might have done when they were teenagers. That's what it all boils down to in the end.

Really? Doesn't it depend on what the person did as a teenager? If s/he got drunk, drove a car and seriously injured or killed someone, that's not irrelevant. If a person got drunk, got into a fight and seriously hurt or killed someone, that's not irrelevant. If a person got drunk and sexually assaulted or raped someone, that's not irrelevant. No matter what their life accomplishments were afterwards.

#99 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-08-08 05:31 AM | Reply

#99 - Especially if that someone is going to be a life-time appointed Supreme Court Justice and, in his confirmation hearing repeatedly referenced that he still likes beer (he referenced beer over 30 times in his confirmation hearing) and obfuscated and got ridiculously emotional over it. Ever been around an alcoholic?

He was an embarrassment and showed no judicial temperament.

#100 | Posted by YAV at 2022-08-08 08:17 AM | Reply

You say she described the house, but she has NO idea where it happened, so how is that corroborative?

Why is information given by a blindfolded suspect as it regards things that they do see helpful in figuring out where they've been or how they got to where they are?

Ford recounted details of the house, yet she had no idea whose house it was or remembered where it was. Those precise details - up/down the narrow stairs, bathroom was here, bedrooms were there, Kav and Judge were in X bedroom - are corroborative when matched to likely locations where the group would have gone, especially since there were no adults present at the time.

#101 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-08-08 09:00 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort