sorry, don’t have fake news account, can’t read it haha
are they talking about the next FARTGATE or PORNGATE?
CNN and Democratic strategists now realize that Kavanaugh obsession is not good for midterm election.
Will the media try to stop or reduce Kavanaugh news report? This fight did not change the nomination, and it could have helped GOP’s midterm results. Whose fault?
Comey was blamed for Hillary’s loss. If GOP manages to keep the house, who should be blamed? Maybe the lawyers who represent Ford and Swetnick? I hope Feinstein won’t be affected, I’ll still vote for Feinstein in November.
1 Like
For the first time since the Kavanaugh accusations surfaced, a fissure has become apparent within the Democratic ranks over what the best political strategy is moving forward. While Baer said he was heartened that Democrats were still running their campaigns on economic issues, he and others expressed fear that the party was becoming too consumed by the Supreme Court fight. Others argued that Kavanaugh’s nomination had cemented a portrayal of Republicans as acutely anti-women.
“This has been a profound insult,” Washington Gov. and Democratic Governors’ Association chair Jay Inslee told The Daily Beast in an interview this week. “It is not a surprise. Kavanaugh is the perfect embodiment of Trump. It’s almost like he went out and looked for somebody who meets his own qualifications of disrespect and incivility. So I guess we shouldn’t be shocked.”
“We don’t have Republican gubernatorial candidates,” Inslee added. “We have lemmings. And they’re following him right over the cliff.”
This is exactly the type of low EQ stuff democrats thrive on. If someone is a sexual assault survivor, then they must blindly believe anyone else who accuses someone of sexual assault. They convince other victims that anyone who doesn’t believe the accuser is some how invalidating their personal experience as a victim. It turns into believe all victims without question, or you’re attacking all victims. That’s an extremely ignorant approach designed to cause division. There’s no desire for an investigation of facts for each individual case. They just appeal to the person’s emotions to get the desired reaction.
It obviously works pretty well on a surprising number of people. People cling to the first story, react emotionally, and refuse to consider any info that didn’t match their emotions. We saw it with the whole “hands up don’t shoot” narrative. It happens all too often. People react emotionally and choose to stay ignorant to the facts.
1 Like
americans are too naive, they need to live in china/hk for a year, and they’ll know politics/traps everywhere in the society.
1 Like
See, just as I was saying…
-
He was very emotional during testimony because well he was being attacked for something he vehemently denies doing.
-
The job that he is seeking is not in a silo. He will be part of a team. Can he work in a team, and be impartial? He makes a case for it.
2 Likes
We need to protect men of color when we protect women. Not all sexual crime accusations are automatically true. Even a credible accusation could still misidentify a black man. Sometimes I was 100% sure of something, but later realized I was actually wrong.
When there is no evidence, what should the media do? Is it ok to report all unverified accusations?
“Believe women” does not mean men of color can’t be trusted.
I hope Megyn Kelly will be safe and not receive a death threat for this comment.
We should improve technology to protect women. Whenever a person is at risk, she can press a button on her cell, a 911 text message should be sent automatically with exact location and sender’s info.
1 Like
“In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.”
The whole article is worth a read.
“While the CDC estimates that nearly 2 million adult American women were raped in 2011 and nearly 6.7 million suffered some other form of sexual violence, the NCVS estimate for that year was 238,000 rapes and sexual assaults.”
It goes into why one number is about 40x higher than the other.
1 Like
Ok, BK moves on to the next round…
Ford’s friend, key witness, was pressured to change her testimony. Is this legal?
The Wall Street Journal reports:
A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter.
Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said.
2 Likes
Now the truth is coming out. What happened to all the people that said they wanted to see all the facts?
1 Like
they will not read. so to them no facts have come out.
1 Like
Considering this was a hobbled FBI investigation that was done in 3 days with only a fraction of the witnesses interviewed no one is going to get closure
obviously FBI found enough flaws in 3 days, they don’t even need a full week. Still everything , every witness is backing off the initial claims . what can fbi investigate? if all ford’s witness she provided say no, i don’t know. okay, anonynous witness next…
so this article say the list of ppl fbi didn’t interview
ford, kavanaugh already interview for 30 hours?? what else fbi can ask, fbi probably think those interview we saw got all the info we need
the rest is classmate of ramirez, then what, liberal new york times try to find her so call witness, and they can’t find nothing.
The New York Times, meanwhile, interviewed of alleged witnesses, and none can remember any such incident. It also stated: “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.” This sentence was later from the New York Times article without any explanation.
1 Like
For a guy who keeps saying he’s done his last post on this thread multiple times, i am impressed you keep posting. Feeling a little uncomfortable that a liar and perjuror is being confirmed? The FBI was blocked from interviewing a number of witnesses, was prevented from probing into the lies Kavanaugh made under oath, was blocked from looking into his drinking issues.
Lifting from a another source - here’s how many unlikely things have to be coincidences in order for Ford’s story to be fabricated (and notice how many of these things the FBI was blocked from looking into)
1 Like
guess, or someone did a reserach and tell her
FBI have way more creditable source than what we read out there.
continue to believe our media feed. ignore the real evidence/facts, investigation by our enforcement
1 Like
I am impressed by the pretzel like logic of conservatives.
FBI and Intelligence community saying Trump won by Russian interference (Lies, don’t believe them)
FBI vindicating something they want (professionals, the best, yeah!)
BTW, I did not say don’t believe the FBI. I said their ability to conduct a proper investigation was hobbled and limited to a specific path. This will lead them to draw only one conclusion because that is all the data they have to infer from. This was not an open FBI investigation with the time and ability to investigate what they need to.
Conservatives spent years and multiple committees investigating and re-investigating every pseudo-scandal in the previous years, but now want to rush through in 3 days an investigation with very limited scope. Not believable.
p.s. After lobbing the accusation of some of us of not reading stuff, I would like to point out you replied to my post so fast you could not have read what I wrote above (the number of coincidences that have to be true and how may of those areas the FBI was blocked from looking into)
1 Like
“An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford — nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony — cannot be called an investigation,” lawyers Debra Katz and Lisa Banks said in a released Wednesday night. “We are profoundly disappointed that, after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth.”
What are they talking about? They questioned every person who she said was at the party as a witness. There are literally zero witnesses who corroborate her story. People she told about it 30+ years after the fact aren’t witnesses. It’s gross negligence in reporting to call those people witnesses, then say the FBI didn’t question all potential witnesses.
You either don’t read or ignore anything that doesn’t fit your emotions. You keep focusing on July, 1st when here own legal team isn’t focused on that date.
“The FBI interviewed three people who Ford said attended the gathering where she said she was assaulted, as well as two other friends of Kavanaugh’s who were listed on his calendar as attending a gathering on July 1 of the same summer that Ford said she believes the alleged assault occurred.
Ford was never focused on July 1 as the date that the assault occurred, a member of her legal team told The Washington Post this week, emphasizing that the FBI would have known that if agents had interviewed Ford.“
