Is the 302 report in the WSJ link? I was only able to see a summary of it and could not read the entire report.
You're just being ridiculous. This is a 53 year old man who has been in public life for a long time. Talking as a lawyer in court, presiding over court, and testifying in hearings. He knows he is expected to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". He has heard that more than a few times. Nobody made him tell all those lies. He did it by choice. Nobody made him evade and deflect. He did it by choice. Nobody made him lose his shit and talk over the Senators, and go off on a partisan rant. He exposed himself for who he is. And that is how he should be judged.
It is not. The JC only released the summary, but that sort of detail doesn't get fat fingered into a summary where millions of people are parsing every single word. It happened.
Only the left is trying to say he portrayed himself as a choir boy. He admitted to drinking beer and partying in high school. He admitted to at times, drinking too much beer. Last time I checked that is not how a choir boy is typically described.
I have no issues with Kavanaugh being a partier in HS. most of us were. As I said in an earlier post, he had two choices here. Door A: Take the scorched earth approach, deny deny deny everything that puts your character in negative light and claim initially that all you did in HS was study, lift weights, attend ball practice and go to church. Door B: Admit that he did these other things, was a huge partier and passed out once in a while. Door A will get him to the Supreme Court. Door B would have probably sent him back to the 12th Circuit or worse because the connection would be made immediately between his blacking out (even if only once)and what Ford claims happened to her. So if his goal was to get to SCOTUS given the claims made he had one path to take, and he took it.
I don't doubt that Keyser was contacted regarding her testimony. Where have I questions is the nature of the contact and the characterization of that contact as being "pressured". Being asked to reconsider or think more about her recollection or lack thereof is not necessarily inappropriate pressure. Regarding inappropriate contact with potential witnesses, there is the nominee himself who contacted his Yale classmates regarding potential testimony from Debbie Ramirez before her allegations against Kavanaugh were even made public. Text messages between Brett Kavanaugh and his classmates seem to contradict his Senate testimony
Clearly that is being leaked about a 302 that is in the SCIF. I'd like to see this report corroborated by a Senator that has actually been able to read the reports.
It is a little different if it is an FBI agent, that you do not know, reaching out to you to say, "I think you need to reconsider how you worded your statement." I think most people would say they feel pressured if a law enforcement officer, especially a federal one, contacted you out of the blue about what you said and asks that you reconsider it.
Not that anyone thought he would vote no, but Sen. Ben Sasse had not committed to voting for Kavanaugh. He has now said he will vote yes.
It appears you didn't actually read the article you are citing where Ford's friend said she felt pressure. Perhaps you should put the Anne Rice novel down, take a nap, and look again.
Going to be a rough next 48 hours for you, I know. Hope the Gators can knock off LSU to take away some of the sting.
Who cares if it's secondhand information? There is no bar on hearsay. This isn't a criminal trial. He is a witness. And he has a witness who testified that Dr. Appold passed the story along to him. How can he corroborate it? He contemporaneously heard about the event, independently recalled the same details that Ramirez provided, and said it was Kavanaugh. That's corroboration, my friend. I am in disbelief that you're actually trying to argue against this. Do you think the police only follow leads from people who have firsthand information? Let's lay out a hypothetical for you. Person C overhears Person B talking about how Person A stole a Ferrari. Person C calls the detective investigating the case and tells him that he heard secondhand/thirdhand information on how the Ferrari was stolen. Do you think that detective is going to talk to Person C? Yes, he will. I know this for a fact. Do you think snitches and informants never pass along secondhand or thirdhand information to help law enforcement with an investigation? Do you think law enforcement ignores those leads? This is about finding the truth. If you actually want to find the truth, you talk to all the people with relevant information. It's amazing how narrowly some of you try to define "corroboration." It's incorrect, and it's baffling that you think anyone who isn't on your side of the argument is actually going to accept that explanation. Nope. That's a strawman argument. I'm saying that: 1. It's very difficult for the FBI to unearth allegations like Ramirez and Ford's; 2. Drinking in college wasn't an issue until he opened the door; and 3. The FBI isn't going to talk to every single person he knew in college. Further, what I am saying is that the FBI wasn't allowed to conduct a real investigation into the issues recently unearthed. However, it's far from clear that Roche and Kavanaugh didn't like each other. Kavanaugh never says it. Roche, as far as I know, never says it. It's clear Roche didn't like White. You're again asking me to make logical leaps. And here, I could actually see myself doing it. But you're also asking me to assume that Roche has some axe to grind because him and Kavanaugh didn't get along 35 years ago. That's a stretch. Plus, it also doesn't address why Kavanaugh's "drinking buddies" have come forward and called him out. Do they also have an axe to grind? Or is it possible that these people have come forward because they don't appreciate Kavanaugh's lack of candor? Second and thirdhand accounts are very relevant. Spin that yarn elsewhere. No, subpoena power isn't a big difference here because all of these people are voluntarily going to the FBI. You're going to need to offer something more. I read the WSJ article yesterday, and it didn't deliver on what the title claimed. From what I saw, they showed that after Ms. Keyser's lawyer made her statement, they told her what the Republicans were using the statement to say and asked if she would be willing to clarify it.
It's not rough for me if Kavanaugh gets confirmed. It's wrong for the country. The USSC should be above blind partisans putting a blatant liar on the bench. But it has no personal impact on me.
No truer words have been spoken. The only thing the Dems care about is the personal destruction of a conservative justice they don't want to have to explain to their base why they couldn't stop from being confirmed to the SCOTUS.
Whatever floats your boat. My arguing the obvious wrt to Kavanaugh's testimony and fitness for the USSC doesn't mean I take it personally.
