Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

[Anonymous]

I think Dr Ford and her advisers and attorneys are more than intelligent enough to have predicted what would likely happen to a letter accusing Kavanaugh of despicable crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

Then they should have been honored, and Dr. Ford shouldn't have read a prepared statement with two attorneys at her side just before the voting. A bit coincidental, no?

They weren't honored. Someone leaked the letter, and Ford identified herself only after that happened and when reporters were tracking her down. There's nothing coincidental about that, it's cause and effect. When she knew she was going to be identified either way, she decided to protect herself and take control of things as much as she could. That was the right thing for her to do.

I wish Kavanaugh had not been confirmed, but from day one when this story broke I was also unhappy that her privacy was violated like that.

Senator Feinstein's office had the letter, and Dr. Ford didn't want to go public. I'm going to assume Kavanaugh didn't want to have it go public. Sooooo...whose office do you think might hold responsibility for not safeguarding the info and then leaking it at the last minute?

We don't know how it happened. The Intercept article that broke the story (which you can read here: https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/) focuses on the fact that other Democrats on the committee had become aware of the letter's existence, were asking Feinstein to share it and then were frustrated she wouldn't. If anything, it sounds like the original source for the Intercept story was more likely to have been out of one of those offices rather than Feinstein's office. As for how those other Democrats learned about it originally, we don't know. It could have been from someone in Feinstein's office. It could have been from someone in Eshoo's office. It could have been an inadvertent disclosure rather than an intentional one (e.g., someone who was in the loop was indiscreet about discussing it within earshot or someone who wasn't). It also could have come from someone outside of either office, such as one of the friends Ford confided in while trying to decide what to do. Obviously someone violated her privacy, intentionally or accidentally, and that's a terrible thing. But we simply don't have any evidence of who that was at this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

What "wishes" exactly?

For privacy. In Ford's letter, she specifically said she was sending the account in confidence and that she expected it to remain confidential until they had the opportunity to speak about it. When they did speak about it, Ford still was not comfortable with it being shared because she was afraid (and rightly so, it's been demonstrated) of the potential ramifications for her and her family if her name became publicly known, so she asked Feinstein not to share it. To say that Feinstein should have then revealed it anyway is to basically say a victim has no right to privacy, no right to determine whether to proceed with their claims, that the victim should basically be victimized all over again, forced to go through an experience she does not want to have and feels threatened and violated by, because the public interest is more important.

But it WAS shared. Back to Senator Feinstein.

It was shared with Feinstein with Ford's consent. Ford addressed the letter to Feinstein (see the text of it here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html). You can also read the transcript of Ford's testimony to understand how that happened. Ford didn't write the letter right off the bat, first she called Eshoo's office to discuss it. She then met with Eshoo's staff twice to discuss how to proceed, and they suggested sending a letter to Feinstein about the attack. Ford wrote that letter and gave it to Eshoo's staff for the purpose of delivering it to Feinstein. The letter specifically stated that Ford expected Feinstein to keep the letter confidential until they'd had an opportunity to discuss it. Feinstein assured her that she would not share the letter without Ford's explicit consent.

You failed to mention that she also texted the WaPo, early on, despite the fact that she testified that she didn’t really want “media” coverage. Give me a break.
Feinstein had a moral and ethical obligation to share this letter with Grassley and with the FBI. At that point, they would have investigated the allegations. That is the process that was totally corrupted here. And, Feinstein is responsible.
Who leaked it? We may never know... but we can narrow it to Feinstein’s office, Eshoo’s office, or her own liberal attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

What "wishes" exactly?

For privacy. In Ford's letter, she specifically said she was sending the account in confidence and that she expected it to remain confidential until they had the opportunity to speak about it. When they did speak about it, Ford still was not comfortable with it being shared because she was afraid (and rightly so, it's been demonstrated) of the potential ramifications for her and her family if her name became publicly known, so she asked Feinstein not to share it. To say that Feinstein should have then revealed it anyway is to basically say a victim has no right to privacy, no right to determine whether to proceed with their claims, that the victim should basically be victimized all over again, forced to go through an experience she does not want to have and feels threatened and violated by, because the public interest is more important.

But it WAS shared. Back to Senator Feinstein.

It was shared with Feinstein with Ford's consent. Ford addressed the letter to Feinstein (see the text of it here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html). You can also read the transcript of Ford's testimony to understand how that happened. Ford didn't write the letter right off the bat, first she called Eshoo's office to discuss it. She then met with Eshoo's staff twice to discuss how to proceed, and they suggested sending a letter to Feinstein about the attack. Ford wrote that letter and gave it to Eshoo's staff for the purpose of delivering it to Feinstein. The letter specifically stated that Ford expected Feinstein to keep the letter confidential until they'd had an opportunity to discuss it. Feinstein assured her that she would not share the letter without Ford's explicit consent.

You failed to mention that she also texted the WaPo, early on, despite the fact that she testified that she didn’t really want “media” coverage. Give me a break.
Feinstein had a moral and ethical obligation to share this letter with Grassley and with the FBI. At that point, they would have investigated the allegations. That is the process that was totally corrupted here. And, Feinstein is responsible.
Who leaked it? We may never know... but we can narrow it to Feinstein’s office, Eshoo’s office, or her own liberal attorneys.

I already addressed that in my post at 10:13.

What evidence do you have that the leak came from one of those sources and not from someone else Ford had confided in? I'm not saying it couldn't have come from the sources you reference (obviously since I already said it could have), but I'm not going to make an assumption that it was without some kind of support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not know that she is keeping all of the contributions. You are speculating.

She SHOULD after what she has been put through.

Once again, as Bart O'Kavanaugh said "what comes around goes around." Keep that in the back of your silly little minds.

FACTS don’t matter to Trump supporters.

That's a pretty ironic statement in light of the many DCUM posters who think just an accusation makes something a fact.

As compared to the people here who 100% think she is lying? Certainly not a fact-based opinion.

Which is why we needed an investigation...

The facts are indeed simple.

1. She made an allegation, which is not the same as the truth.

2. The people she named in the allegation have all denied memory of the party in question. One of the people was her close high school friend who further said she had no memory of meeting Brett Kavanaugh.

3. Specific details her therapist wrote down several years later were later contracted by Blasey-Ford. These include things like the general timeframe for the party (originally mid-1980s, she later changed it to early 1980s to conveniently fit in when Kavanaugh was still in high school). Or the number of men who apparently jumped on her (originally it was four, she changed it to two).

4. Blasey-Ford cannot remember many quite simple details surrounding the alleged event, such as how she got home. Or where the party was. Or whose house it was. Despite that this was only a small gathering.

5. Blasey-Ford made various statements about being afraid to fly or needing two doors, which were both contradicted in a statement from a boyfriend of six years, who pointed out she happily lived in a studio apartment with only one door for a number of years.

6. Blasey-Ford's therapy notes were, suspiciously, failed to be handed over to the Senate despite the extraordinary sensitivity of the circumstances. Yet somehow the Post still got a copy.

I can go on. What further investigation are you looking for? Are you simply upset that the actual facts we have do not match up with the allegation and if anything, they suggest that Blasey Ford either made up the event or is badly remembering what happened that we simply cannot take her seriously? I don't see any provable facts that support Blasey-Ford. At all. You want an investigation to keep hunting for "facts" that simply don't exist, rather than accept that the facts that do exist simply do not support what you want to believe.

There are plenty of facts that you are missing.

Ford knew that Mike Judge worked in a Safeway as a teen and recalled seeing him there after the incident.

The boys Ford claimed were at the party were all on a Friday night entry in Kavanaugh’s own calendar. So Ford has a lot of knowledge about Kavanaugh’s group and a real investigation may have found corroboration there.

How does knowing that judge worked at Safeway prove prove that she was assaulted? Really failing to see the logical connection here. What a joke.

I doubt you have a sound grasp of logic or argument, but let’s assume that you do. The previous response pointed to inconsistencies in Ford’s memories as proof that she manufactured or mistook her allegation. But there are multiple facts that suggest she knew these men, she remembers details about them. How about the fact that her recollection matches a date on Kavanaugh’s calendar? What is the chance that this was a coincidence?

A group of tight friends had a party on a Friday night in the summer. Wow. What are the odds! Amazing! Ford is absolutely, totally right!

But these same people (all of them including the other woman at the party) have all denied remembering such a party. That is the fact.

Right now I can say I so-and-so was with these three or four other people at a party on a Friday night in the summer of 1997. And you know what, I'm right. Even if I wasn't at the party. Because they were great buddies who liked to party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

What "wishes" exactly?

For privacy. In Ford's letter, she specifically said she was sending the account in confidence and that she expected it to remain confidential until they had the opportunity to speak about it. When they did speak about it, Ford still was not comfortable with it being shared because she was afraid (and rightly so, it's been demonstrated) of the potential ramifications for her and her family if her name became publicly known, so she asked Feinstein not to share it. To say that Feinstein should have then revealed it anyway is to basically say a victim has no right to privacy, no right to determine whether to proceed with their claims, that the victim should basically be victimized all over again, forced to go through an experience she does not want to have and feels threatened and violated by, because the public interest is more important.

But it WAS shared. Back to Senator Feinstein.

It was shared with Feinstein with Ford's consent. Ford addressed the letter to Feinstein (see the text of it here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html). You can also read the transcript of Ford's testimony to understand how that happened. Ford didn't write the letter right off the bat, first she called Eshoo's office to discuss it. She then met with Eshoo's staff twice to discuss how to proceed, and they suggested sending a letter to Feinstein about the attack. Ford wrote that letter and gave it to Eshoo's staff for the purpose of delivering it to Feinstein. The letter specifically stated that Ford expected Feinstein to keep the letter confidential until they'd had an opportunity to discuss it. Feinstein assured her that she would not share the letter without Ford's explicit consent.

You failed to mention that she also texted the WaPo, early on, despite the fact that she testified that she didn’t really want “media” coverage. Give me a break.
Feinstein had a moral and ethical obligation to share this letter with Grassley and with the FBI. At that point, they would have investigated the allegations. That is the process that was totally corrupted here. And, Feinstein is responsible.
Who leaked it? We may never know... but we can narrow it to Feinstein’s office, Eshoo’s office, or her own liberal attorneys.

I already addressed that in my post at 10:13.

What evidence do you have that the leak came from one of those sources and not from someone else Ford had confided in? I'm not saying it couldn't have come from the sources you reference (obviously since I already said it could have), but I'm not going to make an assumption that it was without some kind of support.

Not trying to be snarky, but your comment is a bit silly since you probably believe Ford’s allegations “without some kind of support.”
These were the three groups that had the letter. The article in the Intercept had enough specifics that at least one source was someone who had seen the letter. And, if Feinstein had shown it to others at this point, then she did indeed break Ford’s confidence in doing so.
I hope they find the source of the leak. Because people need to start learning that leaks will not be tolerated. Like they have done with that staffer from Sheila Jackson Lee’s office. Serious charges there and bail has been denied. He is in big trouble because he evidently committed several crimes in his attempt to advocate for confrontations with Republican Senators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

And?

We will never know because it was never investigated. It certainly seens plausible. So they will both live in the shadow of uncertainty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not know that she is keeping all of the contributions. You are speculating.

She SHOULD after what she has been put through.

Once again, as Bart O'Kavanaugh said "what comes around goes around." Keep that in the back of your silly little minds.

FACTS don’t matter to Trump supporters.

That's a pretty ironic statement in light of the many DCUM posters who think just an accusation makes something a fact.

Look. You self identify as a Trump supporter. You support a lying conman who has cheated the government out of tax revenue and thinks he can grab anyone he wants by the pu$$y. As a core belief, facts clearly don't matter to you.

Nope. I do not. I DO believe very strongly that a person's reputation shouldn't be ruined based on accusations alone.

I do strongly believe that a person’s life shouldn’t be ruined by an assault/rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

What "wishes" exactly?

For privacy. In Ford's letter, she specifically said she was sending the account in confidence and that she expected it to remain confidential until they had the opportunity to speak about it. When they did speak about it, Ford still was not comfortable with it being shared because she was afraid (and rightly so, it's been demonstrated) of the potential ramifications for her and her family if her name became publicly known, so she asked Feinstein not to share it. To say that Feinstein should have then revealed it anyway is to basically say a victim has no right to privacy, no right to determine whether to proceed with their claims, that the victim should basically be victimized all over again, forced to go through an experience she does not want to have and feels threatened and violated by, because the public interest is more important.

But it WAS shared. Back to Senator Feinstein.

It was shared with Feinstein with Ford's consent. Ford addressed the letter to Feinstein (see the text of it here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html). You can also read the transcript of Ford's testimony to understand how that happened. Ford didn't write the letter right off the bat, first she called Eshoo's office to discuss it. She then met with Eshoo's staff twice to discuss how to proceed, and they suggested sending a letter to Feinstein about the attack. Ford wrote that letter and gave it to Eshoo's staff for the purpose of delivering it to Feinstein. The letter specifically stated that Ford expected Feinstein to keep the letter confidential until they'd had an opportunity to discuss it. Feinstein assured her that she would not share the letter without Ford's explicit consent.

You failed to mention that she also texted the WaPo, early on, despite the fact that she testified that she didn’t really want “media” coverage. Give me a break.
Feinstein had a moral and ethical obligation to share this letter with Grassley and with the FBI. At that point, they would have investigated the allegations. That is the process that was totally corrupted here. And, Feinstein is responsible.
Who leaked it? We may never know... but we can narrow it to Feinstein’s office, Eshoo’s office, or her own liberal attorneys.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

Then they should have been honored, and Dr. Ford shouldn't have read a prepared statement with two attorneys at her side just before the voting. A bit coincidental, no?

They weren't honored. Someone leaked the letter, and Ford identified herself only after that happened and when reporters were tracking her down. There's nothing coincidental about that, it's cause and effect. When she knew she was going to be identified either way, she decided to protect herself and take control of things as much as she could. That was the right thing for her to do.

I wish Kavanaugh had not been confirmed, but from day one when this story broke I was also unhappy that her privacy was violated like that.

Didn't she also call the Washington Post herself? That part never made sense to me if she was trying to be private. Really none of it makes sense to me. If you accuse someone of a crime, it should be to the police not a congressperson or a priest. I don't understand these crime accusations that don't get told to law enforcement.

What did she think would happen by telling people of a crime? They would just consider his character without trying to investigate? That makes no sense.

The first time she contacted WaPo, she did it through the encrypted anonymous tip line, and provided an anonymous way for someone to respond to her. A reporter did respond to her and they discussed the allegations further, but Ford didn't want to be publicly identified so the WaPo journalist kept her confidence and the story wasn't reported. Once the existence of the letter was leaked and people started digging to figure out who sent it, reporters were showing up at Ford's home and at her workplace, even grilling her about whether she was the source of the allegations in front of her students, which is wildly inappropriate. She felt it was inevitable that her name would be published eventually, so she contacted the WaPo journalist who responded to her anonymous tip and whom Ford had come to trust to tell her story.

So basically she wanted to trash his reputation with both congress and through media without being involved herself? Am I getting this right? What was the purpose of contacting them? What was the purpose of contacting congress if she didn't want to press charges? The only thing it could be was that she wanted to tarnish his reputation without actually doing an investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

Then they should have been honored, and Dr. Ford shouldn't have read a prepared statement with two attorneys at her side just before the voting. A bit coincidental, no?

They weren't honored. Someone leaked the letter, and Ford identified herself only after that happened and when reporters were tracking her down. There's nothing coincidental about that, it's cause and effect. When she knew she was going to be identified either way, she decided to protect herself and take control of things as much as she could. That was the right thing for her to do.

I wish Kavanaugh had not been confirmed, but from day one when this story broke I was also unhappy that her privacy was violated like that.

Didn't she also call the Washington Post herself? That part never made sense to me if she was trying to be private. Really none of it makes sense to me. If you accuse someone of a crime, it should be to the police not a congressperson or a priest. I don't understand these crime accusations that don't get told to law enforcement.

What did she think would happen by telling people of a crime? They would just consider his character without trying to investigate? That makes no sense.

The first time she contacted WaPo, she did it through the encrypted anonymous tip line, and provided an anonymous way for someone to respond to her. A reporter did respond to her and they discussed the allegations further, but Ford didn't want to be publicly identified so the WaPo journalist kept her confidence and the story wasn't reported. Once the existence of the letter was leaked and people started digging to figure out who sent it, reporters were showing up at Ford's home and at her workplace, even grilling her about whether she was the source of the allegations in front of her students, which is wildly inappropriate. She felt it was inevitable that her name would be published eventually, so she contacted the WaPo journalist who responded to her anonymous tip and whom Ford had come to trust to tell her story.

So basically she wanted to trash his reputation with both congress and through media without being involved herself? Am I getting this right? What was the purpose of contacting them? What was the purpose of contacting congress if she didn't want to press charges? The only thing it could be was that she wanted to tarnish his reputation without actually doing an investigation.

I have asked this all along.... If she did, indeed, want to remain anonymous, what was her goal? What did she expect of Feinstein?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not know that she is keeping all of the contributions. You are speculating.

She SHOULD after what she has been put through.

Once again, as Bart O'Kavanaugh said "what comes around goes around." Keep that in the back of your silly little minds.

FACTS don’t matter to Trump supporters.

That's a pretty ironic statement in light of the many DCUM posters who think just an accusation makes something a fact.

Look. You self identify as a Trump supporter. You support a lying conman who has cheated the government out of tax revenue and thinks he can grab anyone he wants by the pu$$y. As a core belief, facts clearly don't matter to you.

Nope. I do not. I DO believe very strongly that a person's reputation shouldn't be ruined based on accusations alone.

I do strongly believe that a person’s life shouldn’t be ruined by an assault/rape.

PP here. I do, too. But just an accusation isn't sufficient. Not every woman is truthful. Not every man is truthful. Not every woman lies. Not every man lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not know that she is keeping all of the contributions. You are speculating.

She SHOULD after what she has been put through.

Once again, as Bart O'Kavanaugh said "what comes around goes around." Keep that in the back of your silly little minds.

FACTS don’t matter to Trump supporters.

That's a pretty ironic statement in light of the many DCUM posters who think just an accusation makes something a fact.

Look. You self identify as a Trump supporter. You support a lying conman who has cheated the government out of tax revenue and thinks he can grab anyone he wants by the pu$$y. As a core belief, facts clearly don't matter to you.

Nope. I do not. I DO believe very strongly that a person's reputation shouldn't be ruined based on accusations alone.

I do strongly believe that a person’s life shouldn’t be ruined by an assault/rape.

PP here. I do, too. But just an accusation isn't sufficient. Not every woman is truthful. Not every man is truthful. Not every woman lies. Not every man lies.

this is he said she said. Ford knew darn well that it might go no where like all the other molested women that just move on because they know there is no justice available in our system. The supreme court appointment was too much and she felt it her responsibility to finally speak out and wrongly thought the process maybe had evolved since Anita Hill. Support her 100 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

Then they should have been honored, and Dr. Ford shouldn't have read a prepared statement with two attorneys at her side just before the voting. A bit coincidental, no?

They weren't honored. Someone leaked the letter, and Ford identified herself only after that happened and when reporters were tracking her down. There's nothing coincidental about that, it's cause and effect. When she knew she was going to be identified either way, she decided to protect herself and take control of things as much as she could. That was the right thing for her to do.

I wish Kavanaugh had not been confirmed, but from day one when this story broke I was also unhappy that her privacy was violated like that.

Didn't she also call the Washington Post herself? That part never made sense to me if she was trying to be private. Really none of it makes sense to me. If you accuse someone of a crime, it should be to the police not a congressperson or a priest. I don't understand these crime accusations that don't get told to law enforcement.

What did she think would happen by telling people of a crime? They would just consider his character without trying to investigate? That makes no sense.

The first time she contacted WaPo, she did it through the encrypted anonymous tip line, and provided an anonymous way for someone to respond to her. A reporter did respond to her and they discussed the allegations further, but Ford didn't want to be publicly identified so the WaPo journalist kept her confidence and the story wasn't reported. Once the existence of the letter was leaked and people started digging to figure out who sent it, reporters were showing up at Ford's home and at her workplace, even grilling her about whether she was the source of the allegations in front of her students, which is wildly inappropriate. She felt it was inevitable that her name would be published eventually, so she contacted the WaPo journalist who responded to her anonymous tip and whom Ford had come to trust to tell her story.

So basically she wanted to trash his reputation with both congress and through media without being involved herself? Am I getting this right? What was the purpose of contacting them? What was the purpose of contacting congress if she didn't want to press charges? The only thing it could be was that she wanted to tarnish his reputation without actually doing an investigation.

I have asked this all along.... If she did, indeed, want to remain anonymous, what was her goal? What did she expect of Feinstein?

Exactly. There is no other conclusion I can come up with other than she specifically wanted to trash both his reputation and possibly the republican party with it. She never anticipated an investigation because she knew she didn't have the back up and she didn't want to go through the correct channels of reporting to law enforcement. It was in fact her only motive in coming forward. Yes, maybe it is all true that this actually happened 35 plus years ago and also is true that she felt very uncomfortable with the position he was aspiring to, however she took it upon herself to report all of this both anonymously and in person later knowing her main motive was to trash his reputation and not to seek legal justice.

So in doing so she also trashed her reputation. I feel no pity for her. She achieved her goal of trashing Kavanaugh and she did it knowing she didn't have the proof from the start.