Kavanaugh Hearing

Thursday is the date being discussed.

 

Which of course wouldn't happen if only the FBI investigated... After all, they have a time machine.... I heard Marty and Doc are coming too...

LOL

 

Perfect, then...

Hope she shows up... If not, that would be a shame... but we'll move on...

 

Might want to read a little further back in this thread to the Ed Whelan stuff.

 

I saw her do that too. It was at a party in a house. Not sure where the house was but it was near a country club. I think it was in 1982 but I'm not sure. I didn't report anything at the time but now that Ms. Harris is a senator I have decided to demand an FBI investigation. Do you think I need to give a little more information?

 

You mean more verbal accounts on what another person believe happened?

Hell... Invite him to the hearing, let's make it a party....

Invite all of the men that were allegedly in the room...

 

Did you bother to read back to it?

 

No, but I did some research...

Am I missing something in what I said?

 

Point being that old Ed thinks he found the house. He's no FBI agent. You kept telling us how an investigation couldn't turn up anything.

 

Could there possibly be any evidence within the house that suggests that a sexual encounter of any sort took place between Ford and Kavanaugh?

Is there any evidence that suggests that is the house the alleged victim is speaking about?

Is there any evidence suggesting Kavanaugh was in that house, when it allegedly happened?

Has the victim agreed that this is the house? If it is, why the silence?

Wouldn't an affirmation of the house location add to her credibility?

 

One of Kavanaugh's good friends is convinced it's the house. Think about it a little. If you find the house, you might be able to figure out what day the party was. And that might allow you to figure out whether Kavanaugh had an alibi. Imagine what real investigators could do connecting the dots. Or continue to say that nothing can be done because it's too hard. I'm sure that's typical for law enforcement. "Lady, we think it's going to be too hard to find your son's killer, so we won't even bother investigating." Yeah . . . .

 

What if it is the house?

Why hasn't she agreed? Why hasn't she come out and publicly confirmed, or counsel representing her, that they believe it to be the house?

EDIT: For someone who claims to want to have her story out there and be heard, she seems to be doing everything that she can to keep things as ambiguous as possible... It's pretty convenient to neither confirm nor deny these claims...

 

If Whelan is wrong and Kavanaugh is involved, that would be a really, really bad look.

 

Okay... so no evidence has been found?

Take your pick dude...

Bravo...

 

You tie yourself in a pretzel going for "gotchas." It makes any conversation with you a total waste of time. You're not going to "win" the discussion. Chill out, read what other people have to say (actually read it), and enjoy the discourse. We'll have a resolution sooner than later.

 

Nah... You love blurring the lines of right and wrong... and changing the interpretation of rules based on circumstance and who's involved...

Any conversation with you is moot... I don't expect to change your mind, anymore, and frankly, I don't care...

So why am I here?

Enjoying the discourse....

 

No idea what the deal is here, and I hope Whelan isn’t dumb enough to have run with this with nothing to back him up.

But I don’t know that someone having suggested she may be confused is necessarily the same thing as them endorsing or being involved in Whelan’s specific naming a person theory. “Maybe you’re confused” also tends to be the polite way of saying someone is completely wrong without expressly accusing them of being either a liar or crazy.

For what it’s worth, Erickson is saying that he knows enough about where Whelan got this from to know Kavanaugh is 100% not involved, but who knows.

 

You've helped change my mind once. But no, you're generally not going to change my mind. And the way you conduct discussions is especially ineffective for changing minds. You're not going to get anywhere trying for "gotchas" to make it look like you "won." Bring information to the table (which is how you helped change my mind). Bring logic to the table. Don't put words in the other person's mouth. You didn't like it when I put words in your mouth recently (which I did to try and make a point to you).

Let's put it this way, I don't know if Whelan is right about the house. I don't know if he's right about Garrett. We'll hopefully find out more in the coming days. What I do know is that through access to Kavanaugh and information known to the parties as well as some internet sleuthing, he believes he's found the house. Is he right? We'll see. But even if he's wrong, trained investigators can take all the bits of information and connect the dots. There's a lot we could potentially learn from an investigation. There are investigations every day that start with a ton of holes that need to be filled. It's what investigators do. I don't know why anyone would fear an investigation. If it's time that's the issue, set a limit.

Regardless, there won't be an investigation. She's indicating that she will testify. We'll see what happens. However, the fact that Republicans and Kavanaugh aren't demanding an investigation smells fishy to me. If I were innocent, I'd be demanding an investigation. I'd want more details. Why? Because I'd believe that the more details they uncover, the better the chances that I can exonerate myself. What do I have to lose? Worst case scenario, we end up with the same ambiguity.

 

Lawyer, Digenova thinks she has no case.... in so many words.