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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BK, by his own admissions through speeches and high school yearbook page (not general GP pages, his page) and evidenced by the crowd he ran with was a sexist jerk that lived to get blackout drunk and take advantage of young women. The New Yorker story rings true, everyone knew jerks like that and it fits his college profile as a asshat that drank too much and denegrated women to make himself feel better that no one was attracted to him. He is essentially O’Bannon from Dazed and Confused.

He has not admitted this in the context of his hearings, he has denied that the sky is blue when he could have just said, poor judgement, youthful indiscretions, yada, yada, yada.

All I can say as a woman of his generation is that he is clearly one of those frat boys that give frat boys a bad name. The ones your girlfriends warned you not to let them corner you at a party.

The fact that he has excellent legal credentials for the far right crowd does not mean that his moral compass doesn’t matter. It should matter to them too.

It is exactly this sort of reasoning that decided the Duke Lacrosse men were guilty. Because of sort those types of guys are guilty, we all know their type.

Not them, not what they did or did not do. But our perception of their type.

You don't decide guilt or innocence based on stereotypes. You decide it based on facts.

But this isn't deciding whether or not he should go to jail, this is deciding whether or not he has the moral character and rigteousness to warrant a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. I say, if there is even a whiff of someone being a douchey frat boy, the answer is a resounding NO.

Farrow, on CNN, pointed out that Ramirez’s claim had an unusually high level of corroboration, which suggests it remained memorable for peers because Brett was so gross and cruel, that it came out in Yale circles where multiple people remembered it well before Ford came out, and said he and Meyer left out a lot.

And everyone else is a liar. No. This is multiply sourced. Brett is lying NOW, in middle age.

[Anonymous]

Yes. The false lax accusation was revealed. Do the same. Pit some effort into proving her a liar. Go ahead. Investigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Meyer on the New Yorker Story on CBS this morning...

"We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months since July. There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about will this thing come out? long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward"

This could get interesting if she produces the email chain.

In light of this I am really confused why NYT seems to be carrying GOP water by asserting they could not find anyone corroborating the New Yorker report in addition to a soft-lobbying push by GOP that Kavanaugh would produce his schedule from 1982 as alibi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The false lax accusation was revealed. Do the same. Pit some effort into proving her a liar. Go ahead. Investigate.

#IstandwithBrettthetrainrunner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Meyer on the New Yorker Story on CBS this morning...

"We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months since July. There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about will this thing come out? long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward"

This could get interesting if she produces the email chain.

In light of this I am really confused why NYT seems to be carrying GOP water by asserting they could not find anyone corroborating the New Yorker report in addition to a soft-lobbying push by GOP that Kavanaugh would produce his schedule from 1982 as alibi.

Because their bottom line is at stake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BK, by his own admissions through speeches and high school yearbook page (not general GP pages, his page) and evidenced by the crowd he ran with was a sexist jerk that lived to get blackout drunk and take advantage of young women. The New Yorker story rings true, everyone knew jerks like that and it fits his college profile as a asshat that drank too much and denegrated women to make himself feel better that no one was attracted to him. He is essentially O’Bannon from Dazed and Confused.

He has not admitted this in the context of his hearings, he has denied that the sky is blue when he could have just said, poor judgement, youthful indiscretions, yada, yada, yada.

All I can say as a woman of his generation is that he is clearly one of those frat boys that give frat boys a bad name. The ones your girlfriends warned you not to let them corner you at a party.

The fact that he has excellent legal credentials for the far right crowd does not mean that his moral compass doesn’t matter. It should matter to them too.

It is exactly this sort of reasoning that decided the Duke Lacrosse men were guilty. Because of sort those types of guys are guilty, we all know their type.

Not them, not what they did or did not do. But our perception of their type.

You don't decide guilt or innocence based on stereotypes. You decide it based on facts.

But this isn't deciding whether or not he should go to jail, this is deciding whether or not he has the moral character and rigteousness to warrant a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. I say, if there is even a whiff of someone being a douchey frat boy, the answer is a resounding NO.

Farrow, on CNN, pointed out that Ramirez’s claim had an unusually high level of corroboration, which suggests it remained memorable for peers because Brett was so gross and cruel, that it came out in Yale circles where multiple people remembered it well before Ford came out, and said he and Meyer left out a lot.

And everyone else is a liar. No. This is multiply sourced. Brett is lying NOW, in middle age.

This did not come out in his story. The closest to corroboration came from a male student who said it heard about it. Perhaps Farrow will write further about more corroboration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The false lax accusation was revealed. Do the same. Pit some effort into proving her a liar. Go ahead. Investigate.

#IstandwithBrettthetrainrunner

Karma is god giving him two gorgeous healthy daughters that he has to send off to HS and college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Meyer on the New Yorker Story on CBS this morning...

"We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months since July. There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about will this thing come out? long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward"

This could get interesting if she produces the email chain.

In light of this I am really confused why NYT seems to be carrying GOP water by asserting they could not find anyone corroborating the New Yorker report in addition to a soft-lobbying push by GOP that Kavanaugh would produce his schedule from 1982 as alibi.

The NYT has made an absolutely baffling series of decisions in the last few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Meyer on the New Yorker Story on CBS this morning...

"We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months since July. There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about will this thing come out? long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward"

This could get interesting if she produces the email chain.

In light of this I am really confused why NYT seems to be carrying GOP water by asserting they could not find anyone corroborating the New Yorker report in addition to a soft-lobbying push by GOP that Kavanaugh would produce his schedule from 1982 as alibi.

Because their bottom line is at stake

Wow! Writing about their efforts to investigate and coming up empty after the story has appeared in another source is carrying GOP water? How about a nod to journalistic principles? They also buried this in their news story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BK, by his own admissions through speeches and high school yearbook page (not general GP pages, his page) and evidenced by the crowd he ran with was a sexist jerk that lived to get blackout drunk and take advantage of young women. The New Yorker story rings true, everyone knew jerks like that and it fits his college profile as a asshat that drank too much and denegrated women to make himself feel better that no one was attracted to him. He is essentially O’Bannon from Dazed and Confused.

He has not admitted this in the context of his hearings, he has denied that the sky is blue when he could have just said, poor judgement, youthful indiscretions, yada, yada, yada.

All I can say as a woman of his generation is that he is clearly one of those frat boys that give frat boys a bad name. The ones your girlfriends warned you not to let them corner you at a party.

The fact that he has excellent legal credentials for the far right crowd does not mean that his moral compass doesn’t matter. It should matter to them too.

It is exactly this sort of reasoning that decided the Duke Lacrosse men were guilty. Because of sort those types of guys are guilty, we all know their type.

Not them, not what they did or did not do. But our perception of their type.

You don't decide guilt or innocence based on stereotypes. You decide it based on facts.

But this isn't deciding whether or not he should go to jail, this is deciding whether or not he has the moral character and rigteousness to warrant a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. I say, if there is even a whiff of someone being a douchey frat boy, the answer is a resounding NO.

Farrow, on CNN, pointed out that Ramirez’s claim had an unusually high level of corroboration, which suggests it remained memorable for peers because Brett was so gross and cruel, that it came out in Yale circles where multiple people remembered it well before Ford came out, and said he and Meyer left out a lot.

And everyone else is a liar. No. This is multiply sourced. Brett is lying NOW, in middle age.

This did not come out in his story. The closest to corroboration came from a male student who said it heard about it. Perhaps Farrow will write further about more corroboration.

Why are we depending on investigative reporters to investigate for a life-time appointment in SC? Why is FBI is kept away from investigating these allegations fully before GOP goes any further. Why is the onus on reporters to show Kavanaugh is unfit? What happened to the onus on the applicant to show he is fit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Meyer on the New Yorker Story on CBS this morning...

"We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months since July. There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about will this thing come out? long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward"

This could get interesting if she produces the email chain.

In light of this I am really confused why NYT seems to be carrying GOP water by asserting they could not find anyone corroborating the New Yorker report in addition to a soft-lobbying push by GOP that Kavanaugh would produce his schedule from 1982 as alibi.

The NYT has made an absolutely baffling series of decisions in the last few years.

This is how your Maggie Habermans happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Meyer on the New Yorker Story on CBS this morning...

"We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months since July. There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about will this thing come out? long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward"

This could get interesting if she produces the email chain.

In light of this I am really confused why NYT seems to be carrying GOP water by asserting they could not find anyone corroborating the New Yorker report in addition to a soft-lobbying push by GOP that Kavanaugh would produce his schedule from 1982 as alibi.

Maggie Haberman. Judith Miller. The New York Times seems to get pretty chummy with Republican sources pushing sketchy stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jane Meyer on the New Yorker Story on CBS this morning...

"We found classmates had been talking about this for weeks and months since July. There'd been an email chain of Yale classmates of Kavanaugh talking about will this thing come out? long before Christine Blasey Ford came forward"

This could get interesting if she produces the email chain.

In light of this I am really confused why NYT seems to be carrying GOP water by asserting they could not find anyone corroborating the New Yorker report in addition to a soft-lobbying push by GOP that Kavanaugh would produce his schedule from 1982 as alibi.

The NYT has made an absolutely baffling series of decisions in the last few years.

This is how your Maggie Habermans happen.

This is how they normalized the enormously unfit trump to be better than highly qualified Hillary. They ran articles on her emails exclusively ignoring any investigation on Trump the conman.

[Anonymous]

Who keeps their calendar from 1982?
What teenage boy keeps a calendar in 1982?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Brett Kavanaugh is the hill some of you cretins want to die on. Good God. I’m sure his wife, if she has had the sense the Lord gave a goose, is begging him to withdraw his name and end this as a story for the likes of Farrow and Meyer to continue exploring. Every single person they have profiled to date has at minimum lost his job, and/of been charged (Weinstein, Schneiderman, Moonves).

This. Once Ronan has you in his crosshairs it’s game over.

Please do not ignore Jane Meyer in these stories. While Ronan is a prodigy and has done some excellent reporting, I would like us not to ignore Jane has done half the work. She deserves equal credit.

This. She's an amazing journalist.