BurtReynolds wrote:This is your daily reminder that there isn't a shred of proof to back up any of these claims,
sworn testimony from the accuser, Brett's calendar and yearbook which support the claim that he was a blackout party drunk (something he lied to when asked under oath initially) and that he engaged in threesomes ('devil's triangle') constitute more than a 'shred'
No that very much constitutes a "shred", and that's being charitable.
Let's not forget that he was also alive at the time the crime allegedly occurred, so that's some more proof right there.
Although we're apparently not even sure about the when.
Literally all of the persons she claims were there - this number has gone from three to four to five to four - deny her account of the events (her then-friend providing a sworn statement attesting to both not being at this party and having never met Kavanaugh). Her story includes exactly zero falsifiable elements, and the only meaningful detail she can recall (Place? Nope. Date? Nope. How she got to and from the home? Nope.) is that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator. If even one potentially falsifiable element lined up - let alone were offered - it would go a long way in establishing some evidentiary credibility. But...there just isn't any.
Also, the investigation will be dutifully conducted by the same agency that failed six different times to uncover exactly these events.
It's always possible that I've missed - or misrepresented - something factual, which I'm sure someone will kindly point out.
Anders wrote:Politically I disagree with Kavanaugh on most key issues. Nevertheless, I worry about how a claim that he did something decades ago, as a 17 year old, suddenly pops up for the first time, as he is trying to get a position in The Supreme Court. It seems politically motivated, and therefore rings false in my ears.
I might agree with you if his answers were, "I was a kid who drank a lot and occasionally got into trouble. I don't remember this happening. I certainly don't think I was the type of person who would do this, but if I'm wrong, I'm very sorry for any trauma I've caused this woman, but I am a very different person today."
... and not, "You fuckers are part of a cabal trying to destroy me and ruin my family. Democrats can go to hell, I'm going to eat you all!"
Sure, if he was a Hollywood actor or rock star, or even a regular guy, this would be a good answer. However, in this specific case, he would probably be crucified if he answered what you wrote. I’m no Republican, but I can understand why he went on the war path.
Last edited by Anders on Sat September 29, 2018 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don’t know about this. Seems likely to end up less than fully conclusive, which changes little, but consider:
1. There has been talk for weeks of an FBI probe. None of these people were game. The White House was determined to avoid it. Kavanaugh talked it up but froze when asked to support. Senators rolled their eyes. Flake et al. clearly hoped that the hearing would provide sufficient vote cover, and initially thought that it had. Now they don’t.
2. No one Republican actually believes an FBI probe will work definitively in Kavanaugh’s favor, or they would have weaponized it as an option themselves.
3. Jeff Flake is a coward.
If I were McConnell, I’d be holding the vote as scheduled. If they follow through with their threats, replace him and blame Flake/Dems.
Who is Jeff Flake talking to when he does this? If he's truly thinking of running for President, who's going to vote for someone as spineless as he is?
