SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Dan T.]

15 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Looks like Debbie Ramirez didn’t bring this up herself, but rather her classmates were discussing this internally in July:

 

https://twitter.com/lkmcgann/status/1044202606116171781?s=21

 

 

 

[Kilmer17]

Is it true that the NYTs and WaPo both looked into this and declined to write about it?

[Fresh8686]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

She wasn’t sure until the Dems came looking and pressed the issue. 

 

 

I thought you were trying to be impartial?

Anyways, you're wrong. Multiple people who attended Yale have known about the incident for the past 35 years and were discussing it with each other over email.

 

 

 

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said:

I thought you were trying to be impartial?

Anyways, you're wrong. Multiple people who attended Yale have known about the incident for the past 35 years and were discussing it with each other over email.

 

 

 

That's what the Farrow story says.  That's not my opinion of it.

There should be multiple people saying that it happened then right?

[Bozo the kKklown]

8 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

I thought you were trying to be impartial?

Anyways, you're wrong. Multiple people who attended Yale have known about the incident for the past 35 years and were discussing it with each other over email.

 

 

 

He doesn't care, lol.

 

 

[DogofWar1]

Oh come on, darn Dems just being totally unfair, doing things out of order!

 

It's allegation THEN corroborating evidence.  NOT the other way around!

[Bozo the kKklown]

Avenatti going for it

[bearrock]

If Ramirez really told her friends recently that she couldn't be sure Kavanaugh was the one and then spent 6 days to "review" her memory and then decided Kavanaugh was the one, that blows a titanic sized hole in her credibility in my view.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Oh come on, darn Dems just being totally unfair, doing things out of order!

 

It's allegation THEN corroborating evidence.  NOT the other way around!

It's allegation, then evidence, THEN decision on truth.  The Dems want to decide what happened based on the accusation.

[DogofWar1]

In all seriousness, if classmates were talking about it months ago, independently of Ramirez herself, that's really bad for Brett.

 

But confirming that point is key.  Until other outlets confirm it, pinch of salt.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, bearrock said:

If Ramirez really told her friends recently that she couldn't be sure Kavanaugh was the one and then spent 6 days to "review" her memory and then decided Kavanaugh was the one, that blows a titanic sized hole in her credibility in my view.

Not to the left.  They dont care. lol

[Fresh8686]

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's what the Farrow story says.  That's not my opinion of it.

There should be multiple people saying that it happened then right?

Bull****, that is not what it says. And if you read the damn article you'd see where many people have been talking about it and remember hearing about it happen back then. There is one lady I read in the article who denies that it happened, but she wasn't there and she also has a reason to lie about it, because her husband is one of the alleged bystanders who was with Kavanaugh as he allegedly stuck his dick in her face.

It's a long article and I may have missed something, but please go ahead an prove me wrong. Show me the quote where you got that from and show me you're not twisting information to suit your bias.

[Popeman38]

45 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The GOP has now supported a sexual predator for the WH, a pedophile in the Senate and an accused rapist for the Supreme Court. 

This **** irritates me. No one has accused Kavanaugh of rape. There is no need for hyperbole here. The accusations are serious enough...

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Fresh8686 said:

Bull****, that is not what it says. And if you read the damn article you'd see where many people have been talking about it and remember hearing about it happen back then. There is one lady I read in the article who denies that it happened, but she wasn't there and she also has a reason to lie about it, because her husband is one of the alleged bystanders who was with Kavanaugh as he allegedly stuck his dick in her face.

It's a long article and I may have missed something, but please go ahead an prove me wrong. Show me the quote where you got that from and show me you're not twisting information to suit your bias.

Which people?  Names?

 

 

 

 

[Fresh8686]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If Ramirez really told her friends recently that she couldn't be sure Kavanaugh was the one and then spent 6 days to "review" her memory and then decided Kavanaugh was the one, that blows a titanic sized hole in her credibility in my view.

That's not exactly what the story is saying though. There is a difference between reluctance to characterize an event and reluctance to say whether or not an event occurred. The former implies the reluctance is about details. 

I have no problem with a person who may have been sexually assaulted spending time with an expert to a deep dive in a traumatic past.

Now I can see some assigning corrupt intent to such an action, but were is the evidence for corrupt intent? Especially when there is corroborative evidence from other people who also remember the event occurring.
 

Quote

She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

 

[DogofWar1]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

It's allegation, then evidence, THEN decision on truth.  The Dems want to decide what happened based on the accusation.

 

Which is why Dems are calling for the FBI to investigate, naturally.

 

Listen, I know you really reeeeaaaaaalllyyy want Dems to set the standard of allegation = withdrawl, so when the pendulum swings back you can use it as a beatstick, but that's not happening.

 

And even the window to argue it rhetorically in a way that independents might be duped on it is closing.  Really you needed Brett to withdraw before these Ramirez allegations came out and Avenatti started tweeting.

[Bozo the kKklown]

The Farror/Meyer article has several people, on record, recalling the incident. 

 

"When the grass is cut, the snakes will show."

 

A few people in this thread are showing their real character because they want a conservative court no matter what.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

Which is why Dems are calling for the FBI to investigate, naturally.

 

Listen, I know you really reeeeaaaaaalllyyy want Dems to set the standard of allegation = withdrawl, so when the pendulum swings back you can use it as a beatstick, but that's not happening.

 

And even the window to argue it rhetorically in a way that independents might be duped on it is closing.  Really you needed Brett to withdraw before these Ramirez allegations came out and Avenatti started tweeting.

Back to the FBI again.  They have already declined to investigate the other allegation.  This would still not be in their jurisdiction.  It's a red herring.  The Dems know this, which is why they keep saying it.  Tell the women to go to the police and file charges.  Then let the police investigate and if they need, they can call the FBI.  

[twa]

Ramirez is saying it happened to her?

The story I read earlier seemed to say something else.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The Farror/Meyer article has several people, on record, recalling the incident. 

 

"When the grass is cut, the snakes will show."

 

A few people in this thread are showing their real character because they want a conservative court no matter what.

The are plenty of people claiming it didnt happen.  And people claiming they heard about it.  Or that they believe her.  But not a single other person who states that they were there and saw it.  I wonder why that is?

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said:

That's not exactly what the story is saying though. There is a difference between reluctance to characterize an event and reluctance to say whether or not an event occurred. The former implies the reluctance is about details. 

I have no problem with a person who may have been sexually assaulted spending time with an expert to a deep dive in a traumatic past.

Now I can see some assigning corrupt intent to such an action, but were is the evidence for corrupt intent? Especially when there is corroborative evidence from other people who also remember the event occurring.
 

 

 

I agree and I think the devil is in the detail with respect to exactly what she said to her friends recently.  I read the following in the NY times article that was linked to in the tweet twa posted.

 

Quote

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

 

Based on people who attest that Ms. Ramirez's ordeal at the party was known to classmates at Yale, I'm inclined to think something did happen.  The question is whether the penis exposer was Kavanaugh.  Now, I suppose she could have said something like "I'm almost certain it was Kavanaugh, that's what I've been thinking all these years, but I'm not a hundred percent sure."  That's a lot stronger statement then "I think Kavanaugh was at the party and I think it was him, but I just can't be certain".  The NY times story is vague enough on exactly what she recently said to her friends that it could encompass both end of the spectrum.  But if she really expressed meaningful doubt about the identity of the person at the party, this accusation won't fly imo.

[Fresh8686]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Which people?  Names?

 

 

 

 

Read the article your damn self.
 

There is an unnamed source, which I'm sure you'll immediately discount as a democratic double agent who lives off the blood of Christians and hummus.
But there are other names, read through the article and pay attention when they mention Richard Oh and Mark Krasberg, who corroborates the unnamed democratic double agent source. 

There are also 3 names who dispute it, but who are super close to Kavanugh but then try to pain him as a saint, which we all know isn't true, from everything else we've seen. Especially when you weigh that against Kavanugh's roommate James Roche who vouches for Ramirez over K and characterizes him as someone who would take advantage of a woman in this manner. 

[Dan T.]

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If Ramirez really told her friends recently that she couldn't be sure Kavanaugh was the one and then spent 6 days to "review" her memory and then decided Kavanaugh was the one, that blows a titanic sized hole in her credibility in my view.

 

Ronan's article says she saw the penis in her face.  Moments later she looked up to see a laughing Kavanaugh appearing to be finishing pulling up his pants.

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

Ramirez is saying it happened to her?

The story I read earlier seemed to say something else.

 

In the New Yorker article, she definitely says it happened to her. 

[Burgold]

There is something awful to the fact that Ford was disbelieved because there was only one allegation. Usually, there’s more his defenders say. Now, that there are more...

 

Shows the difference between reason and excuse making, I suppose.