They are not quiet. Her sister in law gave an interview. But. Let’s cut to the chase. Professional professional law enforcement would talk to her family. But, Trump and the majority did not want the investigation until Flake stepped up yesterday and left them no choice. So, to attack an accuser for the inadequacy of an investigation that the Trump adminsistration refused is disingenuous reasoning. Demonstrable prejudgment
She said she was a research psychologist. Did you hear her testimony? She teaches at a school in Palm Alto and does research at Stanford.
Well, he said it, those were his exact words. I'm sure you can easily pull a transcript of the hearing. And regarding his "deferral" to the committee... he's a Federal judge. They have process and procedure literally burned into their brains. It is not his call to initiate an FBI investigation. It is up to the Committee to ask the POTUS for that. As a Federal judge, he's not going to overstep his procedural bounds in a hearing. That is the quickest way for him to get himself thrown off the bench. Procedure, protocol is 2nd nature for judges.
And your evidence to back that she was a "sex maniac" is what in specific? That she said she was sexually assaulted and you wish it wasn't true?
Putting myself in Kav’s position, he had a clear choice to make, either A. Pick the route he did, which is largely an empathetic yet outright and complete denial of what she claimed AND what he was, coupled with bristling defiance that he wasn’t a partier, never passed out, remained a virgin for years after HS, attributed definitions to slang terms then commonly used that were different than the definition that anyone else anywhere attributed to them, was part of a friend’s of Renate club (please) and while doing so build an absolute brick wall between himself and any wrongdoing the kind of which Ford claimed (Which I don’t believe for a minute) , or B. Admit that he was a party animal, passed out on occasion, that his life was more than studying, sports and church like he claimed, that he threw up once in a while from being over-served, possibly dabbled in the occasional 3some, had sex with Renate, etc. but by doing so opens the door to the mere possibility that he blacked out the night of Fords incident, giving her all the credence she needed to make her claim plausible without any further corroboration and costing him a SCOTUS seat. So he made the politically expedient decision (because at his core he’s a political animal, just reread his opening statement) and chose A because he perceived it as his better and maybe only path to the court. So while he may have not assaulted her (i’ve Never said he did), by choosing A he was forced to perjure himself numerous times, which to me is disqualifying in and of itself. He’s not being honest about himself and I don’t think someone who can’t be honest about themselves should sit in judgement of others on our highest court. Our standards should be higher and there are plenty of better conservative options than him, which gets to the heart of why he was nominated in the first place, which is because of his position on executive power, etc, not because he’s simply a conservative federal appeals court judge
You have to admit, her husband not finding a way to be there to support her on Thursday looks horrible for optics sake. If it was as hard on her as we are being led to believe. And I said here days ago her husband was a schmuck. He's not proving me wrong.
But since he believes it to be true, doesn’t it make it true? At least that is what you have been saying about the “victim’s” allegations. He believes their statements vindicate him and prove that his version is correct. So how can he be committing perjury when he believes what he is saying? And to play devil’s advocate, let’s look at the two stories. Ford says those three witnesses were with her at a party with Kavanaugh and Judge. Kavanaugh’s and Judge’s stories are no such party ever happened. The three witnesses swear that they have no recollection of any such party, with the one woman who believes Ford saying she doesn’t recall ever attending a party with Kavanaugh. So which of the above stories is most supported by their statements. Ford’s, which says there was a party, or Kavanaugh’s, which says there wasn’t a party? Logic suggests that Kavanaugh’s story is the closest to what the three witnesses swore to. But let’s not bring logic into an emotional argument.
This is the best example of what was said......no where in there did he say "I'm all in". As a matter of fact, he plainly wouldn't commit to an investigation by the FBI. Kavanaugh said Durbin was asking ‘a phony question because the FBI doesn’t reach conclusions. But Kavanaugh said he would ‘welcome whatever the committee wants to do because I’m telling the truth.’ ‘I’m innocent! I’m innocent of this charge!’ he shouted. Sen Kamala Harris likewise asked Kavanaugh why he had not called on the White House to ask for the FBI to investigated. ‘All three of the women who have мейд sworn allegations against you have asked for an independent FBI investigation, you’ve been asked by four different members at least eight times and on national television whether you would call on the White House to authorize the FBI investigation,’ she said. ‘Are you willing to ask the White House to authorize an investigation into the claims that have been мейд against you?’ ‘I will do what the committee wants,’ Kavanaugh said. ‘I heard you say that,’ Harris continued, not backing down. ‘Are you willing to ask the White House to conduct an investigation by the FBI to get whatever you believe is the bottom of the allegations that have been levied against you.’ When Kavanaugh once again tried to pivot from the question, Harris shot back: ‘I don’t want to debate with you’. ‘Are you willing to ask the White House to conduct such an investigation?’ she asks yet again. When Kavanaugh refuses yet again to directly answer the question, Harris replies: ‘I’m taking that as a no and we can move on’. Brett Kavanaugh arrives hand-in-hand with his wife to try to save his Supreme Court nomination
He wouldn't have perjured himself if he said, "I believe their statements support my story." He lied about what their statements said. That is perjury. I don't much care if he believed what he was saying or not. Believing your own lies doesn't keep it from being perjury. However, I don't think there's a chance in hell that Kavanaugh believed what he's saying. He's not stupid. He's not a bad lawyer. He knew exactly what those statements said. It would be nice if you brought logic into the discussion. Ford told her story. She didn't go out of her way to tell us what the other witnesses were saying. Kavanaugh decided to tell us what the others had said. And he lied about it. It doesn't matter if their testimony was closer to his version of events than hers. When he lied about what their testimony said, he committed perjury. And you're not going to convince me that a person with his credentials didn't know what he was doing. He'd have to be a dumb and incompetent lawyer to not know. That man is a lot of things, but a dumb and incompetent lawyer is not one of them.
It is a pretty open secret in the area up there (I lived in Montgomery for a while). Which is not to say that Kavanaugh is guilty by association. But all this talk about how it is ridiculous because a system with relatively frequent rapes and even gang rapes could never have existed or persisted is not really accurate. Power, money, and privilege have protected the elite prep schools in the DC area for years. Brock Turner was caught in the act and detained and still didn't receive much punishment (3 months in prison) in the current environment. And we expect that sex crimes at private events, involving even richer and more powerful kids, would have been stopped in the 1980s, when sex crimes were regularly used to get laughs in entertainment? I don't know if Kavanaugh tried to rape Dr. Ford. I do know that he was outright lying when presenting himself as some sort of sexually unaware, innocent person coming through that environment, especially given that he was clearly an active participant in the culture (given his yearbook).
Kavanaugh practically broke down when asked "What does boofing mean in your yearbook". He should have straight up been asked. Unfortunately Leahy, or whoever was asking that question, was apparantly too dumb to have checked for the real meaning ahead of time. Guy didn't even challenge Kavanaugh's rediculous lie that it meant "farting". Of course, Kavanaugh is still on the record with those lying answers. These are some of the questions he posed be asked of Clinton, and that Clinton should not be given a break re: the personal sex questions. Kavanaugh may be a fine legal writer, but is a hypocrite of the highest degree, and a deranged political hack to boot.
I sure as hell was taught to be careful ANYTIME in public about ANYTHING. I imagine this should be especially true when auditioning for a gig as a Supreme Court Freaking Justice. I do not believe that Dr. Ford was able to demonstrate irrefutably that Brett Did It. I do believe that she was assaulted as she testified, I'm just not convinced it was him, although I am also convinced it very well may have been him. When he came in to testify, as far as I could see, it was his game to lose. He could be firm, confident, professional and answer any and all questions without any grandstanding or posturing by him or anybody. He's golden. He's good to go. But. No. He had to go and act like a crying little beech. Pout, yell, get all indignant, dodge and deflect, and flat out lie about things that in my opinion are no big freaking deal. That is not just a red flag warning, but air raid signal level warning. Why does he have to lie about being a party animal in the early 1980's? Most everyone I knew back then partied like it was 1999, but maybe not to the extent that Brett & The Boys did. In my opinion, and it just my opinion, Brett & company brought all that mess on themselves. The excessive stomping, name calling, outrage, and ridiculous conspiracy claims with accusations, absolutes, excessive hyperbole and flat out bald face lies should be clear to anyone that there is something very wrong on Brett's side of this deal. Arrogantly stating an unknown as an absolute fact is a lie. It can be an opinion, but not a fact. Now, should he be outraged about being what he truly believes to be a false accusation? Abso-freaking-lutely!!! If it were me, and I have been falsely accused, (not of sexual abuse, but something else), so I know how he feels. I'd be ballistic if I were him as well. Someone would have to find me a closed room somewhere for my meltdown. You just don't go out in public, let alone go under oath with mics and cameras for the whole world to see while being vetted for this gig and act like a spoiled little entitled private school punk 14 year old beyatch they way he did.
As we can all see, there's absolutely nothing to hide: Unsurprisingly, Kavanaugh's friend, Don McGahn, is in charge of the investigation and is not going to allow much investigating to be done.
FEINSTEIN: Judge Kavanaugh, it’s my understanding that you have denied the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick. Is that correct? KAVANAUGH: Yes. FEINSTEIN: All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear. And if you’re very confident of your position, and you appear to be, why aren’t you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims? KAVANAUGH: Senator, I’ll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. Instead, 10 days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I’m in gangs, I’m on boats in Rhode Island, I’m in Colorado, you know, I’m sighted (ph) all over the place. And these things are printed and run, breathlessly (ph) by cable news. You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. I — my family’s been destroyed by this, senator, destroyed. FEINSTEIN: And — and I’m — and I’m very (ph)… KAVANAUGH: And — and whoever wants — you know whatever the committee decides, you know, I’m — I’m — I’m all in. FEINSTEIN: … But the question is… KAVANAUGH: Immediately. I’m all in immediately. Kavanaugh hearing: Transcript
You are arguing what the definition of is is. Kavanaugh argued their statement proved there wasn’t a party. Is that a lie, or the truth? At best, it is 50/50. Each of the three said to their best recollection, they had no knowledge of or couldn’t recall attending a party with Kavanaugh and Ford. It’s a joke you think he is committing perjury by saying the witnesses said the event didn’t happen. You are speaking to his interpretation of the statements by the witnesses. It may differ from your interpretation, but you don’t get to define his truths. You are looking for any little reason to torpedo him since Ford’s story is unprovable. Cannot prove her allegations, then argue semantics.
