Kavanaugh Hearing

Can we admit that some of what is going on here is the expression of fear (and anger) about what a middle-aged man of notable accomplishment is alleged to have done in his teens is coming back to haunt him...and what the implications are when examining one's own past?

 

I know his track record which is why I used the word "conservatives."

 

Feinstein prefers to travel by tunneling underneath the lowest road that she can find. She has never cared for the high road!

 

WRT your other post, at least you have your eyes open.

 

Democrat women being encouraged by democrat politicians and lawyers.

 

Conversely, this part of the New York Times story on it jumped out at me:

"The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."

Christine Blasey Ford Reaches Deal to Testify at Kavanaugh Hearing

 

Conversely, this part of the NBC story jumped out at me:
Second woman alleges sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh
In the last week, three sources familiar with the accusation told NBC about Ramirez's accusation.

 

Yeah, seems clear that it was shopped to, at a minimum, the NYT, NBC, and the New Yorker.

None of the three could find anyone to corroborate the story - and all apparently knew that even she wasn't certain of the allegations - and only the New Yorker decided they could actually run the story, and even there only by framing the story as reporting that the Democratic staff is investigating the allegation rather than reporting the allegation itself.

 

New Yorker did a damn fine job of corroborating the story. Excellent article and reporting. What I've come to realize is that we could have another five women come forward with similar stories and it wouldn't change anything for some of y'all.

 

At this point I'd be perfectly fine replacing Kavanaugh with Ho.

But I'm not sure the Dems didn't overplay their hand on this one with the follow-up accusation. It's significantly weaker than the Ford accusation: I'd be careful at going all in on "someone flashed me in college when I was drunk, as recently as last week I was telling my friends I'm not sure who it was, but after talking to my lawyer for a week I'm pretty sure it was Kavanaugh."

By going in on that one, they've given the White House the opening to fully jump in on the fight and go after the numerous holes in that accusation. Dems are probably going to push the "look, lots of smoke, there must be something here!" narrative, but they've also given the GOP the opportunity to jump in on "this accusation is absurd" and call into question the other one by association.

 

I cannot disagree more. It shows exactly the sort of character that Kavanaugh claimed not to have. The fact that she has holes in her story and was reluctant to come forward because she was drinking is wholly consistent with being victimized in that way. Other people have corroborated that they heard about it at the time. In addition to that, people who knew Kavanaugh, including his roommate, said it was consistent with the way he (and his group of friends) acted at that time. And then, of course, there are the damning nuggets on Judge that sure make it seem like he hasn't been honest with us.

If there's one person who can ruin it all, it's Michael Avenatti. I don't trust that guy. He's an attention seeker. Farrow and Mayer are legitimate reporters with great reputations. I trust them to vet their stories. Avenatti is none of those things. He's the guy Republicans should be hoping for here. He's the sort of guy who would put out a total BS accuser, and that would be used as a basis to say that everything was made up to smear Kavanaugh.

 

Just saying, may want to consider whether there may be a reason that, when this allegation was made, the immediate reaction was for the White House to put out a rather aggressive press blast all but calling it a lie, and even for the NYT to distance themselves from it and make clear that they knew about it, investigated it, and decided not to touch it.

Because those decidedly were not the reactions, from either, to the first allegation.

 

This is the same NYT that got criticized for putting the Rosenstein story out there and then went on the defensive. Sounds more like sour grapes to me that better reporters got the scoop.

As for the WH, that's all it can do here. The option is attack or pull Kavanaugh now that another woman has come forward.

 

The next accusation will be that someone saw Kavanaugh at the pool without a shirt and it scarred them.

 

On the bright side, at least Kavanaugh didn't have his manhood identified as looking like a Nintendo character.

 

Only the pubs could screw up a confirmation hearing this bad. Well done!

 

It would be, except it's all about shaping the narrative that would best serve my client...in this case it's my choice of nominee. If truth is a victim, then so be it. The Dems have made it no secret that they would do whatever it takes to stop this nomination. Apparently they weren't kidding.

 

That's a pretty poorly worded comment from NBC. Are they familiar with the accusation or are they familiar with the incident? Ramirez recently called a lot of friends to ask them about it so knowing about an accusation is pretty meaningless.

 

ttps://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/23/an-open-letter-on-why-i-support-brett-kavanaughs-n/