new kavanaugh sexual assault allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see how many so-called "journalists" who commented on the original NYTimes piece return to correct their statements due to the correction to the story.

Ramirez doesn’t even remember the incident? More farce from the democrat media complex. Kav is my hero. Stood up to the pitchforks and torches and STILL brought on an all female staff.
The guys a hero and mentor.

Vive le Kav!!!

I think based on what happened to Dr. Ford receiving death threats and having to move her family several times that these women are afraid to say they remember anything happening. They don’t want to receive death threats like Dr. Ford has.

Sure. That's it. That has to be it. Can't be that these stories simply are a bunch of bunk.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

Those who don't want to see a conservative-leaning justice on the Supreme Court will make up shady accusations, if they think needed to prevent that person being seated.

+1

Any decent human being knows that by now.

Which is why I will have a tough time voting for any Dem who doesn't explicity condemn the NYT for this fake news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The second witness says the woman (victim) may have been too inebriated at the time to recall the incident. This is precisely the type of thing trained investigators look at, using all available witnesses. So, again, the question is, who directed the FBI to stand down?

It really isn't an "omission" as Mollie would suggest, but rather an incomplete investigation.

Spin, baby, spin!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

Won't matter. When the Democrats have vowed to oppose ANY nomination, you know there will be issues. I remember the ready-made signs made by the organized groups opposed to any nominee. They had all their bases covered.
And, sure enough, at the 11th hour, out comes the sexual assault allegations.
Remember what Chuck Schumer said......
“I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have....The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

[Anonymous]

Read the Judicial Committee report. Stories changed when people were contacted by the FBI. Remember the first person after the accusations? The woman who said "everyone" at Ford's school knew about the incident? Something like there was a buzz around the school the week it happened? I guess when it came out that school was out for the summer, her story kind of changed. And, when she was contacted by the FBI, it really, really changed. She was fine with making up a story until she had to stand behind it.

And, it took Ramirez a week with her attorney to clarify that it really was Kavanaugh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

Those who don't want to see a conservative-leaning justice on the Supreme Court will make up shady accusations, if they think needed to prevent that person being seated.

The issue is that so many people affiliated with the GOP are amoral. So it's tough for you to find a non-shady nominees.

But you did have Gorsuch. Try to find another like him.

[Anonymous]

Dems not liking his votes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

Won't matter. When the Democrats have vowed to oppose ANY nomination, you know there will be issues. I remember the ready-made signs made by the organized groups opposed to any nominee. They had all their bases covered.
And, sure enough, at the 11th hour, out comes the sexual assault allegations.
Remember what Chuck Schumer said......
“I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have....The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

And that quote, in a nutshell, explains what's been said and done by Democrats, ever since Kavanaugh was nominated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

We did. His name is Brett Kavanaugh. Remember that Gorsuch was "safe," because the Dems thought they would get another seat after RBG pushed her retirement into 2021. Few thought that Kennedy would leave the court before Ginsburg. And Scalia's death really threw a spanner into the works.

Those who don't want to see a conservative-leaning justice on the Supreme Court will make up shady accusations, if they think needed to prevent that person being seated.

The issue is that so many people affiliated with the GOP are amoral. So it's tough for you to find a non-shady nominees.

But you did have Gorsuch. Try to find another like him.

[Anonymous]

Why do I feel like I heard this rumor at the time of Kavanaugh's confirmation? I don't think this is new info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is zero indication that these confirmation hearings were conducted with any integrity. Did Bart O'Beer sexually assault multiple women? MAYBE! A real investigation - as we deserved- would have been a key part of assuring Americans, especially women, that we should trust he did not; or if he did shove his penis into multiple women's bodies while they were all drunk, that he'd taken steps to reduce the chances he would continue that behavior now that he is on the highest court in the land.

The Republicans have degraded and undermined every institution we have in this country.

+1

[Anonymous]

So, this is interesting. The reporters' book isn't out yet, but here is some information excerpted from it as relates to Leland Keyser, the only girlfriend that was at the party where the alleged assault took place:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/15/new-book-christine-blasey-fords-friend-leland-keyser-doesnt-believe/

The authors also acknowledge what had previously been reported in “Justice on Trial,” about the efforts of mutual friends to get her to change her testimony to be more supportive of Blasey Ford. The reporters say that some of Blasey Ford’s friends “had grown frustrated with Keyser. Her comments about the alleged Kavanaugh incident had been too limited, some of them felt, and did not help their friend’s case. Surely, given what a close friend Keyser had been, she could say more to substantiate Ford’s testimony and general veracity, even if she could not corroborate Ford’s more specific memories.”

A group text was formed in which friends such as Cheryl Amitay and Lulu Gonella discussed how to get her to say something more helpful to the cause. An unnamed man on the text suggested that they defame her as an addict. Keyser has been in recovery for some time, as her friends know and as has previously been reported.

Amitay answered, “Leland is a major stumbling block.” While asserting she didn’t want her to make anything up out of whole cloth, she offered ideas for things that could sound supportive of Ford’s story, such as that she’d been in similar situations with Blasey Ford that summer.

“I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply,” Keyser told the reporters, a stunning admission of the pressure to which she was subjected to by Blasey Ford’s allies.

As previously reported in “Justice on Trial,” Keyser continues to think about the story in which she was supposed to have played a part. She has both “logistical and character-driven” problems with it. Focusing on one of the angles that many women had trouble believing, she says, “It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she’s going to get home.”

And then, just before the book ends, the reporters drop a bombshell:

We spoke multiple times to Keyser, who also said that she didn’t recall that get-together or any others like it. In fact, she challenged Ford’s accuracy. “I don’t have any confidence in the story.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, Mollie Hemmingway pointed out this significant omission in the NYTimes story in her tweet early yesterday.
She had been given an advance copy of the upcoming book by the NYTimes reporters to review. That is how she knew about the omission.

But, some posters here questioned Hemmingway's credibility and journalistic integrity.
Glad to know she was vindicated.

Her book on the confirmation process is a must read.

Agreed. It was excellent. And, concerning at the same time. I feel sorry for the next SCOTUS nominated by a Republican. Hope that person has very thick skin and an extremely supportive family and cadre of friends.

Or...the next nominee isn't shady. Like Gorsuch (or Garland).

Won't matter. When the Democrats have vowed to oppose ANY nomination, you know there will be issues. I remember the ready-made signs made by the organized groups opposed to any nominee. They had all their bases covered.
And, sure enough, at the 11th hour, out comes the sexual assault allegations.
Remember what Chuck Schumer said......
“I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have....The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

And that quote, in a nutshell, explains what's been said and done by Democrats, ever since Kavanaugh was nominated.

And your source for that sign.... probably a Federalist nutbag who wanted to make gullible Repos believe that there was some coordinated machine that would oppose any Repo candid- or wait! That’s exactly what it is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do I feel like I heard this rumor at the time of Kavanaugh's confirmation? I don't think this is new info.

Indeed, it's the same old sh!t (literally).

[Anonymous]

Those who don't want to see a conservative-leaning justice on the Supreme Court will make up shady accusations, if they think needed to prevent that person being seated.

Whatever. I'm sure you were perfectly fine with the treatment of Merrick Garland.