Kavanaugh Hearing

How about their response to this latest allegation against Kavanaugh... that the vote needs to get pushed thru as quickly as possible? Is that the respo se of people who have any interest in justice?

 

I don't see the point of trying to clash to separate sections of an article when one speaks directly to confirming whether anyone present can confirm it.

 

I asked first...

Why does it have to be Republicans taking the high road and not Feinstein? Why should they suffer and not Feinstein?

I'll answer your question when you answer mine...

Stop deflecting...

 

Rumor has it that the owner of Hustler will be testifying too on Thursday with new info on Kavanaugh.

 

And one speaks to somebody who heard about it at the time, independently offered up facts matching her story, and said he was 100% sure it was Kavanaugh. That's exactly the sort of corroboration that makes it credible to me.

 

I would say that the other two people named by Dr. Ford deny any memory of the party she describes. That accusation is not hanging on Judge's denial.

 

Your question is a bad one. Why should the Republicans do the right thing? The answer is obvious. Why should Feinstein do the right thing? The answer is obvious. What's clear is that neither are doing the right thing. Instead of pointing fingers, you should demand more.

 

That was pointing out a directly relevant fact in this case. Just because you don't like the fact doesn't make it a deflection.

Both sides are driving this process completely and totally based on getting the political win.

 

The other two people weren't in the room. There was nothing significant about the party. It's not out of the ordinary for them to not remember a party from 36 years ago where nothing significant happened to them. Indeed, one of the two said that she BELIEVES Dr. Blasey.

 

So everyone that was said to be present denies that is what happened, as quoted by the article, but a second hand account is more credible?

 

Pubs will keep getting Borked until campaign finance laws are changed. You can smell the legalized bribery a mile away.

 

Did they deny it happened, or do they deny memory of it? Yes, the second-hand account is quite credible. When you can independently compare facts and say that they match, it's significant.

 

If you want campaign finance laws changed, you should be opposing Kavanaugh. His view of the First Amendment kills any chance of that happening.

 

Do you really think that this is about justice? If it was about justice, Feinstein wouldn't have suppressed the letter for 7 weeks. Dems have turned this into pure politics.

 

Again, given that Feinstein really caused all of this by both violating the wishes of the victim and waiting until the 11th hour to address this, why does it have to be the Republicans who take the political hit and not Feinstein?

You're enabling Machiavellian sort of manipulation, using sexual assault as a club to beat your political opponents with...

That's disgusting... For some reason, you can't agree with me on how problematic that is...

 

George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

 

I'm sorry but no person named by Dr. Ford as being at the party has stated that they remember being at any party like that during the time frame that Dr. Ford has described, including the woman Dr. Ford stated was there. A time and place must be provided to allow the accused the opportunity to provide an alibi. That has not been provided in this case and everyone named as being present said that they have no memory of it. At some point disprovable facts need to be provided and none have been provided in this instance.

 

Given that due process has already gone out the window... I do demand more...

I don't believe in enabling Machiavellian manipulation using sexual assault allegations as a club to beat your political opponents with...

Kavanaugh can no longer be criminally prosecuted for sexual assault... The only justice that is left for the victim is a potential loss of spot in the Supreme Court for the man she is accusing...

 

I don't think we are getting into extremely charged partisan politics, we've been at that party for a while now.

 

From the article:

"He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

So are we now at the point that people who heard the story second and third hand are now more credible than the people who were alleged to have been there?