Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Even if she wants the FBI or whoever to investigate, she needs to be able to share more specific details with them e.g. approximate date, venue, attendants, who invited her to the party, who else she knew there, any relationship with BK or Judge prior lead up and subsequent events etc.

What I know that she has provided thus far is not enough for any investigation even if there was an intent to do so

 

No she didn't. And it's out of context.

Fox has the more complete clip:

Question to Feinstein was if she planned to have them come in and speak... her response was that was up to the the GOP as she has no said on that. Here is the full quote within that context. It seems to me she was referring to whether her understanding that [Ford] has only been contacted by email and not by voice of through her lawyer was completely true. Or maybe not. It's not clear.

"I think it's really too bad that no one called her, or called her lawyer. My understanding is she got emails. And this is a woman, and I really believe who's been profoundly impacted by this . . . now, I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know. But I do know that you got to contact her lawyers"


p.s. Advice to member of congress in the age of snippet - don't talk to reporter when you haven't sleep for 50 hours.

 

According to washington post, she has named 4 of the participants. Might want to interview them at least?

 

The accusation has no date that the attack took place, no venue where the attack took place, there's several versions of the story that conflict, there's no full roster of the 6 others who were there, it was already denied by the 2 people alleged to have been there....and it was at least 35 years ago. While it's not "frivolous" the accusation is nowhere near credible and wouldn't be investigated by any level of law enforcement without something more to go on.

I mean, you keep making these statements that are obviously inaccurate yet you'll be shocked when people call you out on it.

 

If she has given names beyond Judge and Kavanaugh, then everyone identified should be summoned to testify under oath.

Judge's own writing places the credibility of his denials in doubt, but then he claims he does not recollect and not that it didnt happen

 

Which part is inaccurate?

She named 4 people. Where do you see a different account of that? link or you are full of fluff as usual.

Do you equate asking for a background check to asking for full blown "investigation"?

FBI conducted interviews with those people would be my preferred route of action.

And unless GOP makes an appearance of an effort that actually resonates with women, they are in for a rough ride when midterms come around. Women are already riled up with the Kavanaugh being a perceived anti-abortionist. That's the point you didn't address/"debunked". How do you think the whole affair will be viewed by the voters?

 

It is telling that Mike Judge will not testify under oath to defend his friend - that's alarming. However, the fact that he is unwilling does not mean the investigation can not happen. Congress can and should subpoena him to testify under oath. The FBI can question him as well since this is dealing with the appointment of a judge to the SCOTUS.

 

By all means, provide us with a link but I've only heard of the name of the 2 alleged attackers, not the other 4 people who were there.

Things you said that were inaccurate

1. seems in line with the #metoo accusations that have been rocking the nation lately.....just flat out wrong

2. the individuals that are involved seem plausible to be in the same vicinity in the time of the crime....she has no idea when it happened or where it happened, so this statement is flat out wrong.

3. the therapist note....the notes weren't something that helps her given that she didn't name the attackers then and she gave different accounts of the attack when she told the story different times.

As to how voters will view this, only the absolute dumbest people in the planet, along with people who are far too biased by politics will see this as anything but a stalling tactic. It's possible that it'll change a few votes against Republicans, but it could easily change more votes against Democrats.
Again, i guess it just depends on how stupid you think people are. Your view suggests that you think people are barely capable of not drooling on themselves. I'm going to give them slightly more credit than that.

 

link
"Ford named two other teenagers who she said were at the party."

When replying, can you succumb to give like ONE FACT per each of my "flat out wrong" statements? Just out of respect maybe for people here?

She has an approximate idea of where (near a country club) and when (a specific season & 2 year period) and that is all one can expect out of an experience that happened so long ago. Remembering faces and names on the other hand is pretty plausible when the event included alleged attempted rape.

Here is a Kevin spacey accusation story if you need a comparison point of what #metoo accusations are like: link

Enjoy your intellectually dishonest night, sir. Hope Trump pats you on your back in your dreams.

 

Fair enough, I hadn't seen that before.

Absolutely, in all situations that aren't self evident to everyone with a fully functional brain. For example, when I said "flat out wrong" with no other explanation, it was because this is nothing like the "#MeToo" accusations, there's never been a "#MeToo" accusation this flimsy.

Yeah....when the "approximate date" is merely a season within a 2 year possible time period, that's not really having an approximate date.

Saying "at a house near a country club" within a specific county 30+ years ago is also not having a place either. Credible accusations have facts like these that are missing that can be checked up on. Since she doesn't have any of these details, it's not a credible accusation.

The difference, of course, is that the allegation is well within character for Kevin Spacey, to the point where he doesn't even deny it. He's pretty notorious for long being into freaky sex **** and doing a ton of drugs. On top of that, notice how that accusation has a very specific place, a fairly specific date that could be looked up in relation to other events that took place and could be confirmed to being a very specific date. Yeah, that's something completely missing in this allegation.

I mean, I'll hand it to you, given absolutely nothing to work with, you are doing your best to spin this thing and if you were talking to a complete moron, they might buy your BS.

 

I am not sure what could be investigated after this. Unless someone else collaborates her story. Otherwise, unless I am missing something (highly probably in most cases lol) then this needs to be put to rest. Go ahead and vote on white bread. And then hopefully Ginsberg will hurry up and die so Trump can get another white male in there.

Reverse the homo's and their marriages. Stop that whole mar1juana legalization thing to keep those prisons full. etc etc etc

 

Haha. someone is being real here for once.

 

You are a joke to be using notoriety and self-denials as an indication of a credibility. Trump is a notorious liar who admitted to sexual assault. Nobody gives a f*ck apparently.

Your selective bias is on a clear display here.

I hope this is the last time I'm trying to debate you.

Keep on repeating that dumb credibility claim of yours. The accusation was good enough for a senate committee to start a hearing. Chew on that.

ps. speaking of character, Kavanaugh is known as a "keg club king" or whatever in his year book. One corroborating fact that seems important to you.

 

No chance, if Ginsberg dies she'll be replaced by a woman to take away the vague and anonymous rape allegation trick, if I had to guess I'd say Amy Coney Barrett though I'm not a big fan.

 

LOL what are you babbling about? Trump "admitted to sexual assault"? You mean the "p***y grabbing" bit? You do know that it's not sexual assault if it is welcomed right? Does that go over your head? Try and think on it for a while. Do your best.

Either way, this random outburst of Trump Derangement Syndrome had literally nothing to do with what we were talking about.....so maybe seek help.

Based on what?

Yeah, me too, you've done a terrible job.

LOL, when i talk about the lack of credibility to the claim, that's just the facts, it doesn't mean she's wrong, just that she's not making a credible claim. Essentially what I'm saying is that she doesn't have enough detail or supporting evidence, not necessarily that she's wrong.

That's not a corroborating fact.

Seriously, get some sleep, you are just embarrassing yourself now.

 

Christine Ford has named Patrick J. Smith as someone who was at the party and he says nope. He has responded and says he knows of no such party and he also knows of no such behavior by Brett Kavanaugh.

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."​

So even the occurrence of this supposed party remains uncorroborated, not to mention that when and where it supposedly occurred remain unspecified by psycho professor Christine Ford.

 

Well this isn't looking very good for her allegations.