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).

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swinging dicks at a frat party 30 years ago? I literally could not care less.

+1

That's fine. But, that says a lot about you. None of it good.

You do recognize your narrative has been undermined resembling the separation of the San Andreas fault, right? That says a lot about you. None of it good. This is the point where you say, "Well, that was embarrassing."

Does the first PP actually care about swinging dicks now?

With all due respect, I'll leave that for you to firm up.

PP should bring this question to the head.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

such a teeny weeny omission...by such esteemed journalists...we're all SHOCKED at the oversight!

The thing is when I read this story, I thought, "give it 24 hours before they reverse". I can honestly say my heart rate didn't even fluctuate when I read this since the humiliation of the once venerable institution of journalism is complete. I wish the President would find such grace, be less publicly reactive and trust more.

+1 PP here. I agree.

You're a despicable person. Both you and the PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Do you know how many times Christie Blasey Ford had to move because of death threats from crazed right wingers? The Republican smear machine is a terrible thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn.

The NYT has updated the piece tonight to say that the earlier version omitted something from the book. That "something" was that the female student who was the alleged victim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.

In other words, she doesn’t want her life to be ruined by relentless harpies like you people. I can’t blame her.

Really. Show us an example of a ruined life? All the liars thus far have lived their lives just fine. Making up things and coming forward hasn’t hurt anybody except the accused.

That’s ok. The ruined lives along the way are all fine. Means justifies the end to the liberal mind. A mind that manages to lie itself in some weird loop. Liberalism is a mental disease devoid of logic and facts. This board shows that in spades.

Christine Blasey Ford, Kavenaugh’s first accuser (attempted rape, if you recall). Her life will never be the same because of crazies like you. Meanwhile, her attempted rapist sits on the Supreme Court. I would’t say that his life is in ruins. But you know that - and you enjoy that she will punished forever for being a victim of entitled male aggression, misogynism, and sheer stupidity from right wingers who refuse to even consider that the deeply flawed people that they admire could be sexual predators, conmen, and traitors. If you people weren’t so loathsome, I’d almost feel sorry for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Would this be the 2nd witness who heard about the incident from a friend?
Please - this piece was so poorly sourced that it should have never been printed. Same with the book coming out.

+1.

This is not journalism.

This is a parody of journalism.

And a brilliant strategy to sell the book. First, everyone was slavering to see what was in the book, now they want to see what is not in the book. A savvy strategy from a marketing person who probably attended many a drunken dorm party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Would this be the 2nd witness who heard about the incident from a friend?
Please - this piece was so poorly sourced that it should have never been printed. Same with the book coming out.

+1.

This is not journalism.

This is a parody of journalism.

Anonymous wrote:I'd hate to be associated with this story. The New York Times went after a Supreme Court Justice and missed. I can't wait to hear what the other justices think about this expression of freedom of speech.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Would this be the 2nd witness who heard about the incident from a friend?
Please - this piece was so poorly sourced that it should have never been printed. Same with the book coming out.

Anonymous wrote:The WAPO article said that the authors had talked to a "veteran FBI" agent about this. Does this mean a retired FBI agent?

Also, it says that the "intermediaries" for Stier went to the FBI? Were these lawyers? Neighbors? Employees? Classmates? Kind of vague. And, for someone as well-wired into the DC establishment, why would he need intermediaries? Makes no sense.

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.