Using the what if what if what if burden of proof you love to use for Kavanaugh, I would say not only did McLean try to get Keyser to lie, she has told hundreds of lies to the FBI about this and should be removed from her job immediately.
Nonsensical analogies don't help your arguments. We don't know what was communicated between McLean and Keyser, so there is no way to know if she was pressured intentionally. With Kavanaugh, I didn't use "what if burden of proof". I used his words. We have the knowledge of the affidavits he misrepresented. We have the yearbook terms and their meanings - both pop culture meanings at the time and the words of his classmates. We have the knowledge of the environmental case he misrepresented from the lawyer who came forward to refute Kavanugh. So we do know in fact that he lied. Show me what was said between McLean and Keyser where this pressure was claimed, and you may have a relevant analogy. The only thing that I've seen, is the McLean called Keyser to let her know that Kavanaugh was misrepresenting her statement in the hearing. And we all know that happened, so it doesn't sound like "pressure" - just information. Maybe there was something else.
I read that summary from Grassley earlier today. We do not know what those witnesses testified to. We do know that people came forward to be interviewed claiming knowledge of the event, that the FBI did not talk to. We do know that one of them heard about the event from an eyewitness who he could name for the FBI.
My opinion. What is so darn disturbing about the Kavanaugh Affair is that Dr. Ford was entirely credible to almost everyone who saw and heard her, and that includes Fox News. That means she was believable as to the occurrence of the incident AND as to the perpetrator. I don't think one can willy-nilly decide to believe one but not both. Nonetheless there were those who asserted she must have been mistaken as to the latter, which is absurd, and still others who said she had no corroboration, which is a legitimate concern. In other words, those people believed her, but wanted an excuse to approve Kavanaugh anyway. As to the supposed lack of corroboration, there are rarely witnesses to these things, and the victims are usually too ashamed and traumatized to say anything. More importantly, however, she did have corroboration: her therapist notes and the polygraph.While a polygraph is not admissible in a court of law, it is nonetheless used regularly by law enforcement and others, including the FBI, to assess the veracity of a witness. Thus, there was sufficient corroboration of the accusation to shift the burden to Kavanaugh to prove otherwise. He clearly did not. Insisting it wasn't him without corroboration was not proof. Thus, the excuses that a credible witness was wrong as to the perpetrator and had no corroboration in any event are thoroughly bogus excuses by a panel of white Republican men intent on confirming him. What men of good faith, not acting solely for a political end and with true sympathy for Dr. Ford, should have concluded was that there was enough doubt to nix the nomination and ask the president to submit a less controversial candidate, such as he did with Gorsuch. Not only did they not do that, their token FBI investigation was clearly a sham as one week was woefully insufficient. So, once again, women get the shaft for the sake of political expediency. The GOP should be ashamed of its needless stubbornness at the expense of yet another violated woman. A final note. I am a Democrat, but I prefer moderates of either party on SCOTUS. If any president nominates a qualified candidate of impeccable character, he or she should be confirmed. It is understood that the voting will go according to party lines, and that the minority will seek by legitimate means to block the nominee. That's the politics of the process. I initially would have confirmed.Kavanaugh despite my reservations about his views and impartiality. Once Dr. Ford testified, however, serious doubt entered my mind, doubt which Kavanaugh did not dispel by his impassioned denial. Where there is such doubt regarding a Supreme Court nominee, that nominee should never be confirmed. Thank you for reading and considering this viewpoint.
For those interested, you can watch Kamala Harris campaign for President on the Senate floor by way of colloquy with Da Nang Dick and Patty Murray right now.
Bottom line is that it is likely a federal judge and nominee for SCOTUS lied multiple times under oath, yet will be confirmed.
Ramirez’s accusations were confirmed in the same manner it was confirmed that Ferris Bueller was sick, right? My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who is going with this girl that said she saw Brett Kavanaugh show his penis to Ramirez at 31 flavors. Were you there? No. Thank you for your time.
I don't know about Harris but if Warren is the Democratic nominee Trump could experience the worst defeat by an "Indian" adversary since George Armstrong Custer met Sitting Bull's warriors at the Little Big Horn.
The Priest who heard about it at the time of the event, claims that he heard about it from an eyewitness who he knows. The FBI could speak with both the Priest and the witness who told him about it. I know that Priests have gotten a bum rap of late, but still tend to think of them as pretty honest in general. Of course, your mileage may vary.
Collins sounds like a yes based on the beginning of her speech. Hasn't said yet, but her speech began by lamenting that this nomination seems more like the conclusion of a gutter political campaign rather than the Senate fulfilling its solemn duty, and lamenting the race to oppose the nomination prior to it even being announced who it was.
