Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[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?

She could hope that Feinstein could find some other plausible reason to rally Senators to deny confirmation. As others have pointed out, Kavanaugh is not a perfect candidate. While his judicial history is excellent, he also has a history of being politically involved, and surely someone like Feinstein could use that to her advantage. She could hint to other Senators that there were questions about his history (I admit, challenging, given his record of hiring women and no history of scandal), and then focus on his political history and the couple of his cases that potentially show bias. She could have even tried to make hay with the perjury issue that some folks here are obsessed with. I don't personally think there's anything provable with the perjury bit, but there's enough smoke there that someone with her level of connections could potentially make it look like a fire, given how divided we are politically right now.

Just as I believe we should give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt when it comes to unproven and unsubstantiated claims, I believe we should give Ford the benefit of the doubt about why and how she contacted Feinstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out

She did this to tarnish his reputation. Look. There aren't a myriad of options when reporting crimes. You are either trying to get the person to be charged and put in jail or you are trying to tarnish their reputation regardless of the outcome. She achieved her mission.

Yes of course if you are going to come forward 36 years after the fact you need to be sure you have proof if you want the person to be found guilty. Where is all the common sense? It makes no difference how famous the person is. It makes a difference how much proof you have after 36 years. Having the FBI investigate is above and beyond what most people get in a sexual assault case especially one that long ago.

In a sense, you're right, it was about tarnishing his reputation, but not in the way you're trying to spin it, that it was done for some nefarious purpose, a baseless smear to get revenge or something. When a person is up for a position that requires the utmost character and integrity and you have information that you believe bears on that person's character and integrity that isn't going to come out otherwise, there is a public value in you bringing that information forward, even if it's too late to do anything else with it. Kavanaugh was nominated to a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. Ford believed that determination shouldn't be made without the Senate being able to consider the full scope of his character and integrity, including the fact that he sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh didn't already have a reputation for sexual assault, so natural coming forward with this would "tarnish his reputation." After so many years, a criminal charge obviously wasn't going to happen, but that doesn't mean the assault had no bearing on his fitness for this appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

Again, you’re being ridiculous. Go educate yourself instead of posting rhetorical questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

I dont have to be an FBI agent to know that I cant imagine being tasked with investigating this incident without personally interviewing those two people. I want to ask the questions I want to ask and I certainly dont want some 5 minute time limit construction imposed on each question. Prepared statements are fine only if I get to follow that up with whatever questions I need to ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out

She did this to tarnish his reputation. Look. There aren't a myriad of options when reporting crimes. You are either trying to get the person to be charged and put in jail or you are trying to tarnish their reputation regardless of the outcome. She achieved her mission.

Yes of course if you are going to come forward 36 years after the fact you need to be sure you have proof if you want the person to be found guilty. Where is all the common sense? It makes no difference how famous the person is. It makes a difference how much proof you have after 36 years. Having the FBI investigate is above and beyond what most people get in a sexual assault case especially one that long ago.

In a sense, you're right, it was about tarnishing his reputation, but not in the way you're trying to spin it, that it was done for some nefarious purpose, a baseless smear to get revenge or something. When a person is up for a position that requires the utmost character and integrity and you have information that you believe bears on that person's character and integrity that isn't going to come out otherwise, there is a public value in you bringing that information forward, even if it's too late to do anything else with it. Kavanaugh was nominated to a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. Ford believed that determination shouldn't be made without the Senate being able to consider the full scope of his character and integrity, including the fact that he sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh didn't already have a reputation for sexual assault, so natural coming forward with this would "tarnish his reputation." After so many years, a criminal charge obviously wasn't going to happen, but that doesn't mean the assault had no bearing on his fitness for this appointment.

I didn't say it was to get revenge somehow. I think she's beyond that and wanted to use her words to take down the republican party and his appointment at this point. I don't actually believe she's still hurt by him if it ever happened at all. If she was still seeking actual revenge for the crime, she would have pressed charges through law enforcement. she didn't because her motive was entirely to harm his reputation knowing she had no proof. She also understood that there was no way her words were going to have any effect on the nomination unless they went public. I think the real reason she spoke anonymously from the beginning was to see if she had enough democrats to rally around her to make the story public and go somewhere. It had nothing to do with the republican party at all. She was just doing a grassroots campaign first to get liberals on board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out

She did this to tarnish his reputation. Look. There aren't a myriad of options when reporting crimes. You are either trying to get the person to be charged and put in jail or you are trying to tarnish their reputation regardless of the outcome. She achieved her mission.

Yes of course if you are going to come forward 36 years after the fact you need to be sure you have proof if you want the person to be found guilty. Where is all the common sense? It makes no difference how famous the person is. It makes a difference how much proof you have after 36 years. Having the FBI investigate is above and beyond what most people get in a sexual assault case especially one that long ago.

In a sense, you're right, it was about tarnishing his reputation, but not in the way you're trying to spin it, that it was done for some nefarious purpose, a baseless smear to get revenge or something. When a person is up for a position that requires the utmost character and integrity and you have information that you believe bears on that person's character and integrity that isn't going to come out otherwise, there is a public value in you bringing that information forward, even if it's too late to do anything else with it. Kavanaugh was nominated to a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. Ford believed that determination shouldn't be made without the Senate being able to consider the full scope of his character and integrity, including the fact that he sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh didn't already have a reputation for sexual assault, so natural coming forward with this would "tarnish his reputation." After so many years, a criminal charge obviously wasn't going to happen, but that doesn't mean the assault had no bearing on his fitness for this appointment.

I didn't say it was to get revenge somehow. I think she's beyond that and wanted to use her words to take down the republican party and his appointment at this point. I don't actually believe she's still hurt by him if it ever happened at all. If she was still seeking actual revenge for the crime, she would have pressed charges through law enforcement. she didn't because her motive was entirely to harm his reputation knowing she had no proof. She also understood that there was no way her words were going to have any effect on the nomination unless they went public. I think the real reason she spoke anonymously from the beginning was to see if she had enough democrats to rally around her to make the story public and go somewhere. It had nothing to do with the republican party at all. She was just doing a grassroots campaign first to get liberals on board.

That sounds loony tunes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

DP, but personally I think they should have interviewed Ford and Kavanaugh. I'm not an FBI investigator, but as an attorney I know that I never just rely on accounts taken by someone else, a document where someone wrote down information, etc., without actually talking to the person directly to confirm those accounts, fill in holes, and find any other relevant details that might not be apparent in the information someone else gathered for me. Maybe for something truly minor/insignificant/uncontroversial, but not for anything key to a matter. I have high regard for the FBI, and I believe that if they'd been allowed to interview Ford and Kavanaugh, they would have wanted to do so in order to ensure they'd done a proper investigation and not taken any shortcuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

I dont have to be an FBI agent to know that I cant imagine being tasked with investigating this incident without personally interviewing those two people. I want to ask the questions I want to ask and I certainly dont want some 5 minute time limit construction imposed on each question. Prepared statements are fine only if I get to follow that up with whatever questions I need to ask.

Just ignore PP. She is being deliberately obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out

She did this to tarnish his reputation. Look. There aren't a myriad of options when reporting crimes. You are either trying to get the person to be charged and put in jail or you are trying to tarnish their reputation regardless of the outcome. She achieved her mission.

Yes of course if you are going to come forward 36 years after the fact you need to be sure you have proof if you want the person to be found guilty. Where is all the common sense? It makes no difference how famous the person is. It makes a difference how much proof you have after 36 years. Having the FBI investigate is above and beyond what most people get in a sexual assault case especially one that long ago.

In a sense, you're right, it was about tarnishing his reputation, but not in the way you're trying to spin it, that it was done for some nefarious purpose, a baseless smear to get revenge or something. When a person is up for a position that requires the utmost character and integrity and you have information that you believe bears on that person's character and integrity that isn't going to come out otherwise, there is a public value in you bringing that information forward, even if it's too late to do anything else with it. Kavanaugh was nominated to a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. Ford believed that determination shouldn't be made without the Senate being able to consider the full scope of his character and integrity, including the fact that he sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh didn't already have a reputation for sexual assault, so natural coming forward with this would "tarnish his reputation." After so many years, a criminal charge obviously wasn't going to happen, but that doesn't mean the assault had no bearing on his fitness for this appointment.

I didn't say it was to get revenge somehow. I think she's beyond that and wanted to use her words to take down the republican party and his appointment at this point. I don't actually believe she's still hurt by him if it ever happened at all. If she was still seeking actual revenge for the crime, she would have pressed charges through law enforcement. she didn't because her motive was entirely to harm his reputation knowing she had no proof. She also understood that there was no way her words were going to have any effect on the nomination unless they went public. I think the real reason she spoke anonymously from the beginning was to see if she had enough democrats to rally around her to make the story public and go somewhere. It had nothing to do with the republican party at all. She was just doing a grassroots campaign first to get liberals on board.

You are doing a lot of speculating here but haven't provided any foundation for it. If you can point to any evidence to support this conclusion, I'm happy to discuss that.

[Anonymous]

Guess that is better then just being obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

I dont have to be an FBI agent to know that I cant imagine being tasked with investigating this incident without personally interviewing those two people. I want to ask the questions I want to ask and I certainly dont want some 5 minute time limit construction imposed on each question. Prepared statements are fine only if I get to follow that up with whatever questions I need to ask.

Director Wray testified today that their investigation was typical....”the usual process was followed.” They had hours - HOURS - of sworn testimony from both Ford and Kavanaugh. The only reason to re-interview them would be to set either up for a “perjury trap.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

And why aren't they being pursued?