Kavanaugh Hearing

You can think whatever you want at this point...

I would have zero issue if Republicans took a vote tomorrow, preferably Thursday after the Ford hearing, actually...

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

 

Haven't even tried...

The "New Yorker" is reaching as much as it possibly can to find any sort of credibility in sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh and has been entirely unsuccessful...

 

Credibilty is not investigated or measured by newspaper or magazine stories. It is done by trained investigators who gather evidence and testimony and by the presentation of witnesses after that process. You have apparently determined that the allegations are not credible based on media stories. What is the fear of an investigation and the rush to confirm? We know the court can function without 8 justices because it did for 280 plus days after Scalia does? Why are Trumpsters so afraid of investigations?

 

Ronan Farrow: Yale classmate 'extraordinarily careful' in accusing Kavanaugh
So, this is corroborated by more than just one person, Judy.

There's a number of people, including people on the record, who learned about this at the time. There's the individual you mentioned. She was told right after, and independently of Ramirez, not someone who was in touch with her, recounted exactly the same fact pattern, down to small details. That's a very credible person.

There's an individual who saw a young woman crying, recounting the same fact pattern, again, soon after. That's an incident that Ms. Ramirez remembers, that she was crying recounting this. And we have a number of individuals in the Yale community saying that this was known and discussed before Dr. Ford's allegation came to light.

As to the people who were present, I want to point out something important that I think is often lost in the conversation. The individuals present who denied that this happened are individuals who Deborah Ramirez said were involved in the alleged misconduct, who egged on Kavanaugh, who taunted her.

And those individuals did sign onto a statement, which we included in full, saying that they didn't recall this event and they thought Judge Kavanaugh to be an individual of good character.
. . . .
So, I want to correct your correspondent in what she said earlier. The New York Times didn't pass on this story. They didn't decline to run the story.

Dean Baquet has come out publicly and said that. This is a case where, as is very often the case with big stories, a lot of publications chased it. And The Times was among the ones that aggressively pursued Deborah Ramirez and repeatedly asked her to speak.

She declined, because she was working with "The New Yorker" and wanted to do this carefully with a reporter that she trusted. That's a completely reasonable judgment call. But that is why they couldn't find that corroboration level that "The New Yorker" found. And, clearly, we also found other corroborators that they didn't.

We also say that we made dozens of calls, and that there were many people who didn't recall this or who didn't respond for comment. We have been extremely careful to disclose all of that up front.

 

Susan Collins wants to hear from Ramirez.

 

Absolute nonsense, even for you Duchen.
The White House has not refused to let the FBI investigate. Does the FBI regularly investigate 36 year old allegations of Juvenile misconduct where the alleged victim does not recall the location, date, and time of the allegation? Where "witnesses" identified by the accuser have unanimously said that they were either not at any party as described or if they had been to a party as described, they have no recollection of hearing about the accusation. That area of Maryland is extremely liberal, why don't the Dems, go to the local authorities and demand an investigation. Because even the most liberal sheriffs in the country would laugh them out of the station.
For Congress to request the FBI to do so would also be ridiculous for the reasons above.
My position here is actually quite simple, let Dr. Ford put forward credible, corroborated evidence, and I'll listen. So far this, has not happened.

 

Yes, they have. Is there an investigation? No. Does the White House have the power to order one? Yes.

 

It has.

 

FBI conducts background checks, and in fact conducted background checks on Kavenaugh.

Yes, the FBI could and probably should do this, and they have explicitly said it's up to the White House to order them to (presumably, because it's not a "criminal" case, they need to be ordered to re-open the background check).

Simple question, has the White House ordered the FBI to look into this allegation, to "re-open" their background investigation? The answer is no.

Anita Hill "investigation" was re-opened and done in 3 days, and the report was included in time for those hearings. If the WH had immediately called on the FBI to look into this one (like last week), it is almost certain they could have had a report for the Thursday hearing. The report may or may not have been particularly valuable (likely not, as in the case of Anita Hill), but it's better than doing nothing - doing noting means they didn't even give off the appearance of wanting the truth.

 

What would you say, for example, if you had an adult child who came to you and said he or she was abused by a priest or your adult neighbor as a teen?

Would your response be "Mary, put forward some credible, corroborated evidence, and I'll listen?"

 

They don't need to be ordered to reopen the check, they usually check out new information as they get it. They probably have looked into this to the extent they can without formally interviewing Ford and Kavanaugh. So they can check out the details from her letter and compare with their interviews as well as potentially interviewing others. Since everyone is lawyered up though it's unlikely many are going to talk to them voluntarily.

 

I see you're following Duchen into the realm of weak arguments. The White House has the power to do a lot of things. That they don't does not constitute a refusal.
Trump: Hey Chris, can you investigate this for us.
Wray: Of course, Mr. President. When did it happen?
Trump: She doesnt know. Sometime 36 years ago.
Wray: Where did it happen?
Trump: She doesn't know.
Wray: Who are the witnesses?
Trump: All of the ones she has named say they have no knowledge of it.
Wray: Sir with all due respect it would probably be easier to find Gator fans who want Jim McElwain back than to find out what went on 36 years ago, at an unknown location at an unknown time.

 

Wow mutt, you're really making this tough.

Honey, when did it happen, I don't know.
Where did it happen, I don't know.
Honey look, you need to give me something to go on here.

 

It's been requested repeatedly by Senate Dems and Dr. Blasey. The White House not ordering it is definitely a refusal. And if it's as futile as you claim, there's no reason not to order it. It would be done in a couple days. FBI comes back and says, "We can't find anything. There's nothing more we can do." Boom. Simple as that. Ask yourself: Why aren't they ordering an investigation? Why isn't purportedly innocent Brett Kavanaugh stomping his feet and demanding that they investigate? Why wouldn't an innocent person want the FBI looking into what happened?

If you want to talk about the realm of weak arguments, you have found yourself squarely in that location.

 

Easy, because she has made an accusation with no credible evidence to back it up. She has offered no details for location, date, or time. And NONE of her named witnesses back up her claim!

 

The Pennsylvania Catholic Church sex-abuse scandal dates back to at least the 1960's, are you saying they shouldn't have looked back that far in THEIR investigation - just because? What is the arbitrary cutoff in your mind for when facts shouldn't be uncovered?

 

Kavanaugh stomping his feet would make him look too much like a democrat.
To demand an investigation would actually give credibility to this nonsense!

 

Uh no, that's not how that works. If you're innocent, an investigation is what takes credibility away from the accuser. It potentially exonerates you. But please, continue to tell us all how an innocent person would not want investigators to uncover more details.

 

Why are Clinton supporters so afraid of investigations?