Kavanaugh vote postponed. Judiciary Committee hearing on Sexual Assault complain Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker could not independently verify that Kavanaugh was even at the party.

If this turns out to be a hit piece with no verification, Ronan Farrow has destroyed his reputation.

Exactly.

Exactly what? People were quoted in the article confirming the event. What are you seeing that confirms the PP's observation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker could not independently verify that Kavanaugh was even at the party.

If this turns out to be a hit piece with no verification, Ronan Farrow has destroyed his reputation.

Exactly.

Denial is not an attractive look, can’t wait to see the excuses when the third allegation becomes public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It took her six days to figure out her memory of this? She attended social events with him (wedding) and had smiling pictures taken with him? Give me a break.

Finally a voice of reason!

She wasn't alleging rape. Her story is that the drinking game crossed a line, by a very large margin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It took her six days to figure out her memory of this? She attended social events with him (wedding) and had smiling pictures taken with him? Give me a break.

Finally a voice of reason!

LoL, nice try--he is TOAST.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker could not independently verify that Kavanaugh was even at the party.

If this turns out to be a hit piece with no verification, Ronan Farrow has destroyed his reputation.

I think he also quoted people who say they would have known and had never heard about it.

So, let these people make statements about this to the committee--which means they must be truthful. Of the earlier accusation, the only person at the "party" who has not submitted a sworn statement is Ford.

Let these do the same. If they do, then Kavenaugh should drop out.

Hard to believe that with six background checks that something like this would not come out.

I can. What reason would the FBI have had to talk to any of these people when the character lists are provided by the person being nominated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker could not independently verify that Kavanaugh was even at the party.

If this turns out to be a hit piece with no verification, Ronan Farrow has destroyed his reputation.

I think he also quoted people who say they would have known and had never heard about it.

So, let these people make statements about this to the committee--which means they must be truthful. Of the earlier accusation, the only person at the "party" who has not submitted a sworn statement is Ford.

Let these do the same. If they do, then Kavenaugh should drop out.

Hard to believe that with six background checks that something like this would not come out.

Are you sure that's what you want? You really want the hearings to continue for each and every one of these allegations? Just how many women need to come forward for the Republican Senators to take these allegations seriously. You'd be in hearings through the mid term elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it has to be a man, we need more confirmed bachelors who live in cabins amongst books and dine on apples and plain yogurt. No skeletons. Just a devotion to plain living and judging.

Please. There's a reason Gorsuch, Roberts, etc. didn't have to fend off these sorts of unsavory allegations. It's because they're not unsavory people.

I have no doubt they have skeletons in their closets too. Almost everyone does.
Except for maybe my niece who entered a convent at age 18. I guess we could start looking for Supreme Court justices therebut they’d definitely be anti Roe v. wade.

Honestly, it’s scary and appalling that you are normalizing sexual assault. Decidedly “not everybody” has done it. If it’s normative in your crowd I suggest new friends.

Honestly it’s scary and appalling that that is how you interpret my post. I did not say everyone sexually assaults and for you to interpret “skeletons in closet “ to mean that says more about you than me.

Everyone may have skeletons in their closet, but for most people it is something they find personally embarrassing. For some people itmay involve being mean and yelling, but not that many people have sexual assault as their skeleton — and that is not a good look for the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Kav the creep should concede tomorrow, for the sake of the women he hasn’t bad touched.

[Anonymous]

After all the salacious details Kavanaugh wanted about the Clinton-Lewinsky business, karma is indeed a capital B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker could not independently verify that Kavanaugh was even at the party.

If this turns out to be a hit piece with no verification, Ronan Farrow has destroyed his reputation.

I think he also quoted people who say they would have known and had never heard about it.

So, let these people make statements about this to the committee--which means they must be truthful. Of the earlier accusation, the only person at the "party" who has not submitted a sworn statement is Ford.

Let these do the same. If they do, then Kavenaugh should drop out.

Hard to believe that with six background checks that something like this would not come out.

Are you sure that's what you want? You really want the hearings to continue for each and every one of these allegations? Just how many women need to come forward for the Republican Senators to take these allegations seriously. You'd be in hearings through the mid term elections.

Works for me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it has to be a man, we need more confirmed bachelors who live in cabins amongst books and dine on apples and plain yogurt. No skeletons. Just a devotion to plain living and judging.

Please. There's a reason Gorsuch, Roberts, etc. didn't have to fend off these sorts of unsavory allegations. It's because they're not unsavory people.

I have no doubt they have skeletons in their closets too. Almost everyone does.
Except for maybe my niece who entered a convent at age 18. I guess we could start looking for Supreme Court justices therebut they’d definitely be anti Roe v. wade.

Honestly, it’s scary and appalling that you are normalizing sexual assault. Decidedly “not everybody” has done it. If it’s normative in your crowd I suggest new friends.

Honestly it’s scary and appalling that that is how you interpret my post. I did not say everyone sexually assaults and for you to interpret “skeletons in closet “ to mean that says more about you than me.

Everyone may have skeletons in their closet, but for most people it is something they find personally embarrassing. For some people itmay involve being mean and yelling, but not that many people have sexual assault as their skeleton — and that is not a good look for the Supreme Court.

This. If you went through the background of most people, they would not have multiple people accusing them of sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After all the salacious details Kavanaugh wanted about the Clinton-Lewinsky business, karma is indeed a capital B.

Rarely does karma work so obviously. It's nice to see it when it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker could not independently verify that Kavanaugh was even at the party.

If this turns out to be a hit piece with no verification, Ronan Farrow has destroyed his reputation.

Keep reading the article. People were able to contemperaneously verify the claim.

From the article:

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.

After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections

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

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.”

The only "corroboration" comes from someone who wasn't there. Because we don't know this classmate's identity, we can't assess whether it's truly an "independent recollection":

A classmate of Ramirez’s, who declined to be identified because of the partisan battle over Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that another student told him about the incident either on the night of the party or in the next day or two. The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it has to be a man, we need more confirmed bachelors who live in cabins amongst books and dine on apples and plain yogurt. No skeletons. Just a devotion to plain living and judging.

David Souter part two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker could not independently verify that Kavanaugh was even at the party.

If this turns out to be a hit piece with no verification, Ronan Farrow has destroyed his reputation.

I think he also quoted people who say they would have known and had never heard about it.

So, let these people make statements about this to the committee--which means they must be truthful. Of the earlier accusation, the only person at the "party" who has not submitted a sworn statement is Ford.

Let these do the same. If they do, then Kavenaugh should drop out.

Hard to believe that with six background checks that something like this would not come out.

I can. What reason would the FBI have had to talk to any of these people when the character lists are provided by the person being nominated?

These are not your "run of the mill" background checks where they talk to one or two people. They usually venture out a little

Nevertheless, none of those she named at the party are corroborating her story. Six days to figure out her memories--with the help of her lawyer? Really? She admits she was fuzzy. The only one verifying her story --who only said he heard about it, was not there--chose to remain nameless.