One thing is certain... if she's telling the truth she'll show up... If she's not, that doesn't necessarily mean she won't show up, IMO, though... It's a bad look... when all she has to do, is be as ambiguous and vague as possible... You'd need proof that she's lying for a perjury charge...
When it's easily verifiable whether or not you were at the scene of a crime... Lying about it... makes you look guilty, whether or not you actually are... It's a horrible defense....
That was pretty good how they turned "OK", "3 Points by a referee", and "Puff Puff Give by a stoner" into "White Power". Silly me, I was not aware...
I didn't say you lie about it. You stay silent or give a non-answer. You don't volunteer you were at the scene of an attempted rape that you are alleged to have committed. If you're going to do that, you better have an ironclad alibi.
Fair enough... But Kavanaugh hasn't stayed silent... He has said he wasn't there, as it pertains to at least the Ford allegation...
Difi threw that option out the window when she sat on Dr. Ford’s letter and didn’t share it with the committee. Prior to Kavanaugh hearings was the time to conduct a confidential investigation into her claims, not after all the hearings were over and a vote was about to be scheduled. It should also be pointed out the author is a likely political appointee during the Obama Administration.
I don’t know that it’s really a white power symbol even now, but the troll has gotten complicated (and close) enough that anyone smart would keep a big distance from it. I don’t think it’s white supremacists identifying themselves to one another even now, but it is people on the fringe right (some of whom are white supremacists) who have realized that if they can get themselves photographed doing it, they can still get a bunch of idiots to jump on Twitter and go “oh my god the white power sign!” and then laugh at those tweets.
This is also the part that puzzles me of Kavanaugh's alibi... How can he claim he wasn't at a party, when he doesn't know which party the accuser is speaking about? She has a pretty broad description of the house, time, and location... What he attended no house parties during that time period? It's just weird... EDIT: Perhaps it's a strategy to force the victim to specify exactly which party she was talking about... removing what seems to be the moving target Kavanaugh has to build his defense against... But I'm not sure if he made that statement under oath... If he did... that would certainly be an issue, if he weren't telling the truth...
That doesn't change the information that the author is giving. You can disagree with his conclusions, but the information he's giving is legitimate.
The allegations any Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez came to light after the FBI investigations. But, you know that already. The Republicans don’t want any of this investigated. They have made their minds up without and FBI investigation and without hearing the testimony. Meanwhile, rather than question witnesses themselves, they will hide behind a woman they hired to ask the questions. You can look at the posts here and see how most everyone has decided the credibilty of Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford along political lines before even hearing what they have to say. How truly sad for the country.
If the Senators question Ford: "Look, evil old men bullying a victim of sexual assault. This is the Republican Party." If a female attorney is asking the questions instead of the Senators: "Look at the cowardice displayed by the Republican Party... they're too scared to ask the victim questions, themself." There's no winning with you... Which is why we don't care what you think...
Actually, there is a way to win. The Senators ask questions in a respectful manner. However, they need outside counsel because they know their will be political blowback if they are disrespectful, and they don't want the clips of them getting their hands dirty.
As though it's hard to get political blowback from you people... You guys are the same people that are calling Desantis racist for saying, "monkey this up." I'm sure you'll find something you can feed on in a lengthy hearing with a potentially emotional alleged victim of sexual assault being questioned by old white men...
If Pub Senators want to conduct character assassination on somebody, they should have the nuts to do it themselves. Hiding behind a hired skirt to avoid political fall out, is sleezy and cowardly. Other than that, you nailed it.
Well, if the old white men are stupid enough to say, "Don't slut this up," they will have reaped what they sowed.
It does. The background investigations he is talking about happened confidently when the public was not completely aware of the accusation. After it becomes public, especially for a SCOTUS nomination, that changes the calculus. If Difi had done the right thing, the FBI could have handled this quietly, it cannot do that anymore. The fact the article is written by a likely Obama appointee does not help make the article credible.
"Character assassination?" Isn't a hearing what she wanted in the first place? I wouldn't call skeptical questioning character assassination... We'll see what happens... If they start insulting her during the hearing... that would be stupid... They shouldn't do that... even if she is lying...
