Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came across this article about Mark Judge, which I thought was really well written and thought-provoking:

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-went-to-georgetown-prep-and-knew-mark-judge-and-i-believe-christine-blasey-ford/

Thanks for linking to this article.

Before I read it I had already thought that Ford's story was believable because there was no good reason for her to name Judge as being in the room if it all didn't happen. He was Brett's best friend, why would she think he wouldn't back Brett's version? Why would she provide an extra witness who she knew would likely only be on Brett's side and back whatever Brett said? The only reason she would place Judge on the scene is if he was actually there and actually witnessed what happened.

She just thought, erroneously, that Mark Judge might actually tell the truth. Maybe the Mark Judge she remembered from high school would have.

But Brett and Mark could not possibly admit to this event if it might mean it cost Brett the appointment to the supreme court. So they didn't.

+1

I watched her testimony and my gut reaction as she spoke was that Mark's behavior was indicative of a decent kid trying to stop what was happening. According to the linked author, I was right. And I've never met anyone involved.

Correction: you believe what you want to believe and are twisting the story to fit in what you want to believe. There is no proof or fact behind your belief, only speculation. And therein lies the crux of the matter.

You cannot have read the linked article in the time you took to respond with YOUR opinion.

Read it, I dare you.

Yes, I read the article. And what did you want me to do? Proclaim that I'd achieved enlightenment? The article offers nothing. It says nothing about what may or may not have happened on that night. It says nothing about the failures of Ford's allegation to be supported with a reasonable story. It says nothing about the failure of Ford's good friend and classmate to back up the story. It says nothing about Ford's utter failure to remember simple things like whose house the party was at, how she got home from the party. It says nothing about the discrepancy between what Ford told her therapist several years ago, and what she testified to the Senate committee (such as the approximate time frame of the attack, the number of men who jumped on her).

I'm sorry to fail you. I'm clearly a bigot or whatever you want to call me for having doubts about Ford's story and the damning failure of key people to verify it as well as the contradictions from just about everyone else involved in this mess. But that's what I base my conclusion on. I think there is a very good chance that something did happen to Ford - but definitely not in the way she told it and Kavanaugh is completely innocent of it all. I do think she was attacked but most likely when she was in college and she is mixing up memories and has convinced herself she's figured it out. It would certainly explain the very bizarre (and damning) reluctance of her parents and her siblings to publicly support her, because, after all, they are the ones who would know her far better than any of us on this internet forum. They likely knew something was not right about Ford's allegation and that's why they stayed away from it. Although this part is simply speculation, of course, but it's just as grounded and even more likely so than may of the posts on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

The Prep guy cracks me up. He’s the perfect caricature of an entitled prick.

I know someone personally who's buddies with Kavanaugh and has been peddling this same line to anyone who will listen. Frankly, it makes it easier rather than harder for me to believe Kavanaugh may have done these things. If these guys were going to assault anyone, it's wasn't likely to be a girl from one of the "right" schools, not the sister of a Prep classmate or someone in their inner circle. It was going to be someone from a lesser school, someone they viewed as beneath them, someone who, to them, was totally disposable.

Yep I guess you as a college sophomore or junior hung out at house parties with 16 and 17 year old prep school kids? What joke. Sure I am going to drive 25 to 30 miles to go hang at a highschool party. Oh wait they have a punch bowl...just like in Animal House! That is cool....no I do not want to go to a bar in Georgetown. I like them young and we can watch the rape parties! This story is very similar to the UVA story. Swetnick makes me think ford made up her story too. You feminists will do and say anything to get your way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sure. There is the proof that she contacted the Washington post. That meant she wanted the story public somehow from the beginning. There is also the proof that she contacted her senator and that the senator was interested in the story. That shows that she wanted people voting for Kavanaugh to listen to her information when determining their voting decision. There is also proof that she was active in politics. Knowing this, she should have been able to understand that without some tarnish to his reputation through her words leaking out, she would have understood that republicans had the majority and he would have been confirmed. We recently had another supreme court justice confirmed the same way by a majority vote. There is also proof that she decided not to press charges through Montgomery County police. One speculation I have not confirmed is that she already contacted her friend about the incident at least sometime over the past 35 years and knew her friend wouldn't remember the event. I can't believe that wasn't known before she contacted Feinstein. She also would have known that Judge and Kavanaugh wouldn't support her story. And she knew she had no other proof because she didn't tell her parents or anyone during that time and had no recollection of the house or even the date.

From this I can gather that she realized she didn't have enough information for a criminal investigation. I can also gather that she did want to come forward to tarnish his name somehow because she knew she didn't want to press charges. However she understood she was accusing someone of a crime that could lead to an investigation if she wanted it. If she wanted the republicans to get on board right away and get the best possible investigation she would have been more public from the beginning. Because she and Feinstein waited, it tells me she and Feinstein wanted to rally their own party and/or wanted to make the biggest bang before the election.

This is, again, a lot of speculation. Yes, she participated in a Womens March and made some small-dollar political donations, but so have millions of other women (myself included) who didn't not make allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Why do you believe she's different?

The only point I was making was that she wasn't totally blindsighted that republicans had control of the nomination for supreme court at this time. Being that she was tuned into politics she would have watched Neil Gorush's confirmation process.

I looked up her friend and her friend says that Ford never contacted her about this incident ever. Imagine that. 35 plus years and she contacts the Washington Post and her congress person and senator to allege a crime but doesn't contact her best friend who would be a corroborating witness before doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

The Prep guy cracks me up. He’s the perfect caricature of an entitled prick.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[…]It would certainly explain the very bizarre (and damning) reluctance of her parents and her siblings to publicly support her, because, after all, they are the ones who would know her far better than any of us on this internet forum. […]

That doesn’t really say anything, actually. If we knew that they didn’t support her at all, maybe, but I read that her family does support her. I suppose Dr Ford and her family decided that it was enough for her to know that they support her privately and she didn’t want them to get death threats, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sure. There is the proof that she contacted the Washington post. That meant she wanted the story public somehow from the beginning. There is also the proof that she contacted her senator and that the senator was interested in the story. That shows that she wanted people voting for Kavanaugh to listen to her information when determining their voting decision. There is also proof that she was active in politics. Knowing this, she should have been able to understand that without some tarnish to his reputation through her words leaking out, she would have understood that republicans had the majority and he would have been confirmed. We recently had another supreme court justice confirmed the same way by a majority vote. There is also proof that she decided not to press charges through Montgomery County police. One speculation I have not confirmed is that she already contacted her friend about the incident at least sometime over the past 35 years and knew her friend wouldn't remember the event. I can't believe that wasn't known before she contacted Feinstein. She also would have known that Judge and Kavanaugh wouldn't support her story. And she knew she had no other proof because she didn't tell her parents or anyone during that time and had no recollection of the house or even the date.

From this I can gather that she realized she didn't have enough information for a criminal investigation. I can also gather that she did want to come forward to tarnish his name somehow because she knew she didn't want to press charges. However she understood she was accusing someone of a crime that could lead to an investigation if she wanted it. If she wanted the republicans to get on board right away and get the best possible investigation she would have been more public from the beginning. Because she and Feinstein waited, it tells me she and Feinstein wanted to rally their own party and/or wanted to make the biggest bang before the election.

This is, again, a lot of speculation. Yes, she participated in a Womens March and made some small-dollar political donations, but so have millions of other women (myself included) who didn't not make allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Why do you believe she's different?

The only point I was making was that she wasn't totally blindsighted that republicans had control of the nomination for supreme court at this time. Being that she was tuned into politics she would have watched Neil Gorush's confirmation process.

I looked up her friend and her friend says that Ford never contacted her about this incident ever. Imagine that. 35 plus years and she contacts the Washington Post and her congress person and senator to allege a crime but doesn't contact her best friend who would be a corroborating witness before doing so.

None of this undermines her claims.

[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?

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

They aren't rhetorical.

I am of the opinion you have no idea what an FBI background investigation is, and I'm trying to figure out where you think it went wrong.

That you can't articulate where you think it went wrong reinforces my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

Blah blah blah. It was a credible accusation in that she could lose her clearance and livelihood if she was making it up. The White House told the FBI not to investigate it. They were also told not to investigate Ms. Ramirez’s claims.

There’s a whole lot of funny about Brett. Perjury. Debt. Political hack. Sexual assault accusations.

[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.

The FBI was tasked with doing a background investigation. Do you think the FBI does not know how to do that?
Do you have evidence that the FBI was prevented from interviewing Ford or Kavanaugh if they had felt it would have been a useful addition, on top of what had already been done in the Senate hearing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sure. There is the proof that she contacted the Washington post. That meant she wanted the story public somehow from the beginning. There is also the proof that she contacted her senator and that the senator was interested in the story. That shows that she wanted people voting for Kavanaugh to listen to her information when determining their voting decision. There is also proof that she was active in politics. Knowing this, she should have been able to understand that without some tarnish to his reputation through her words leaking out, she would have understood that republicans had the majority and he would have been confirmed. We recently had another supreme court justice confirmed the same way by a majority vote. There is also proof that she decided not to press charges through Montgomery County police. One speculation I have not confirmed is that she already contacted her friend about the incident at least sometime over the past 35 years and knew her friend wouldn't remember the event. I can't believe that wasn't known before she contacted Feinstein. She also would have known that Judge and Kavanaugh wouldn't support her story. And she knew she had no other proof because she didn't tell her parents or anyone during that time and had no recollection of the house or even the date.

From this I can gather that she realized she didn't have enough information for a criminal investigation. I can also gather that she did want to come forward to tarnish his name somehow because she knew she didn't want to press charges. However she understood she was accusing someone of a crime that could lead to an investigation if she wanted it. If she wanted the republicans to get on board right away and get the best possible investigation she would have been more public from the beginning. Because she and Feinstein waited, it tells me she and Feinstein wanted to rally their own party and/or wanted to make the biggest bang before the election.

This is, again, a lot of speculation. Yes, she participated in a Womens March and made some small-dollar political donations, but so have millions of other women (myself included) who didn't not make allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Why do you believe she's different?

The only point I was making was that she wasn't totally blindsighted that republicans had control of the nomination for supreme court at this time. Being that she was tuned into politics she would have watched Neil Gorush's confirmation process.

I looked up her friend and her friend says that Ford never contacted her about this incident ever. Imagine that. 35 plus years and she contacts the Washington Post and her congress person and senator to allege a crime but doesn't contact her best friend who would be a corroborating witness before doing so.

None of this undermines her claims.

I really don't understand your logic at all. She sought no witnesses before making accusations. She knew she had no one to corroborate her story. She made a claim about a crime someone committed. To me that tells me all she wanted to do was tarnish his reputation through her claim knowing her claim was not able to be proven credible. I gave you my logical reasoning. What is yours?

[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?

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.

Would you ever work from another attorney's deposition? We don't just have interviews from Ford and Kavanaugh, their statements are official, on the record.

The background checks I've been involved with have not been multi-interview processes. I don't recall ever having had someone return to me to ask followup questions, not when I've been the one getting my background checked and not when I've been a part of someone else's background check. Without evidence that someone prevented the FBI from talking to Ford or Kavanaugh, my inclination is to assume the FBI felt their statements stood as they were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The FBI was tasked with doing a background investigation. Do you think the FBI does not know how to do that?
Do you have evidence that the FBI was prevented from interviewing Ford or Kavanaugh if they had felt it would have been a useful addition, on top of what had already been done in the Senate hearing?

DP...proof? Yes, FBI Director's testimony today that was specific in the White House placing limits on the background review conducted last week.

You know what else? The FBI is still investigating Kavanaugh.

LOL, this is all going to drip out and the GOP are going to look awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

Blah blah blah. It was a credible accusation in that she could lose her clearance and livelihood if she was making it up. The White House told the FBI not to investigate it. They were also told not to investigate Ms. Ramirez’s claims.

There’s a whole lot of funny about Brett. Perjury. Debt. Political hack. Sexual assault accusations.

If the White House told the FBI not to investigate Ms. Ramirez's claims, then someone needs to contact the LA Times and tell them their reporter is lying.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-wray-kavanaugh-background-20181010-story.html
"The nomination was put on hold for a week while the FBI interviewed nine people, including those whom Ford named as having attended the house gathering. Agents also questioned Deborah Ramirez, who alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and thrust his genitals in her face when they were freshman at Yale University."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came across this article about Mark Judge, which I thought was really well written and thought-provoking:

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-went-to-georgetown-prep-and-knew-mark-judge-and-i-believe-christine-blasey-ford/

Thanks for linking to this article.

Before I read it I had already thought that Ford's story was believable because there was no good reason for her to name Judge as being in the room if it all didn't happen. He was Brett's best friend, why would she think he wouldn't back Brett's version? Why would she provide an extra witness who she knew would likely only be on Brett's side and back whatever Brett said? The only reason she would place Judge on the scene is if he was actually there and actually witnessed what happened.

She just thought, erroneously, that Mark Judge might actually tell the truth. Maybe the Mark Judge she remembered from high school would have.

But Brett and Mark could not possibly admit to this event if it might mean it cost Brett the appointment to the supreme court. So they didn't.

+1

I watched her testimony and my gut reaction as she spoke was that Mark's behavior was indicative of a decent kid trying to stop what was happening. According to the linked author, I was right. And I've never met anyone involved.

Correction: you believe what you want to believe and are twisting the story to fit in what you want to believe. There is no proof or fact behind your belief, only speculation. And therein lies the crux of the matter.

You cannot have read the linked article in the time you took to respond with YOUR opinion.

Read it, I dare you.

Yes, I read the article. And what did you want me to do? Proclaim that I'd achieved enlightenment? The article offers nothing. It says nothing about what may or may not have happened on that night. It says nothing about the failures of Ford's allegation to be supported with a reasonable story. It says nothing about the failure of Ford's good friend and classmate to back up the story. It says nothing about Ford's utter failure to remember simple things like whose house the party was at, how she got home from the party. It says nothing about the discrepancy between what Ford told her therapist several years ago, and what she testified to the Senate committee (such as the approximate time frame of the attack, the number of men who jumped on her).

I'm sorry to fail you. I'm clearly a bigot or whatever you want to call me for having doubts about Ford's story and the damning failure of key people to verify it as well as the contradictions from just about everyone else involved in this mess. But that's what I base my conclusion on. I think there is a very good chance that something did happen to Ford - but definitely not in the way she told it and Kavanaugh is completely innocent of it all. I do think she was attacked but most likely when she was in college and she is mixing up memories and has convinced herself she's figured it out. It would certainly explain the very bizarre (and damning) reluctance of her parents and her siblings to publicly support her, because, after all, they are the ones who would know her far better than any of us on this internet forum. They likely knew something was not right about Ford's allegation and that's why they stayed away from it. Although this part is simply speculation, of course, but it's just as grounded and even more likely so than may of the posts on here.

You can’t explain or begin to explain what is rational in immediately discounting an identification from someone wholly certain, who dated the boy Ed Whelen tagged as Kavanaugh’s doppelgänger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came across this article about Mark Judge, which I thought was really well written and thought-provoking:

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-went-to-georgetown-prep-and-knew-mark-judge-and-i-believe-christine-blasey-ford/

Thanks for linking to this article.

Before I read it I had already thought that Ford's story was believable because there was no good reason for her to name Judge as being in the room if it all didn't happen. He was Brett's best friend, why would she think he wouldn't back Brett's version? Why would she provide an extra witness who she knew would likely only be on Brett's side and back whatever Brett said? The only reason she would place Judge on the scene is if he was actually there and actually witnessed what happened.

She just thought, erroneously, that Mark Judge might actually tell the truth. Maybe the Mark Judge she remembered from high school would have.

But Brett and Mark could not possibly admit to this event if it might mean it cost Brett the appointment to the supreme court. So they didn't.

+1

I watched her testimony and my gut reaction as she spoke was that Mark's behavior was indicative of a decent kid trying to stop what was happening. According to the linked author, I was right. And I've never met anyone involved.

Right -- Judge stopped the action by jumping on top of both of them, causing them to tumble, then distracted Kav, allowing Ford to leave.