who broke those stories?
We are not going to turn this into another Kavanaugh thread, are we?
Sorry for promoting the hijack; I’ll stop after this post. But I don’t want disinformation to go unanswered.
(a) Trump’s FBI refused to run a check on Ford’s story. Trump’s Senate refused to call other accusers. Instead testimony (other than Ford’s) came from pro-Kavanaugh people. Clearly witness selection was biased!
(b) Stopping Kavanaugh was hardly a key goal of liberals. Whoever got the nod was going to be an extreme right-winger.
(c) Lost under one specific accusation against this drunken misognyist frat-boy is that he was a reprehensible partisan who should never have been a judge at all! His original appointment as judge was delayed by three years because of his extreme partisanship. The utter venom and contempt with which he spoke of the Democratic Party and with which he addressed Democratic Senators should have debarred him from being a judge even if we were a teetotalling Puritan and chaste as a monk.
Which of her old friends said that she told them about the incident at the time?
Since you are being a stickler about the difference between having no recollection of ever having been at a party with Kavanaugh, and denying that Keyser was at a party with Kavanaugh, please be just as much of a stickler in this.
Several - not one, several. And that she told them at the time. BTW,
‘Somebody else said somebody else said’ is not “Ramirez told her friends at the time”.
Regards,
Shodan
Frankly the sexual assault allegations on Kavanaugh are secondary to the fact that he’s a partisan hack and doesn’t have the temperament to adjudicate a pie-eating contest, let alone sit on the Supreme Court.
We’re seriously off-topic here, guys. Was ABC engaged in a massive conspiracy to conceal a pedophile ring, or were they merely cautious about breaking a story, perhaps overly so, that they didn’t feel had sufficient corroboration?
The links I found don’t name them.
I withdraw the specific language I used, and thank you for urging me to be careful with language. It’s important to get things right, especially on this kind of issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to improve myself. I also applaud you for recognizing that the claim that Keyser denied Ford’s account is entirely false.
I should have said the following:
One fellow student independently recalled numerous details of the story that matched Ramirez’s account, including Kavanaugh’s name and the location of the party; another classmate recalled overhearing, after the same party, a female student recounting near-identical sexual assault behavior; another classmate reported that he had witnessed Kavanaugh being frequently, incoherently drunk; and Ramirez told her mother and sister at the time of an upsetting incident, though without details.
In other words, it was entirely false for Sam Stone to claim that we know that Ramirez lied. There’s far more reason to believe Kavanaugh lied (about his drinking habits and yearbook messages, most notably and obviously) than Ford or Ramirez.
It was very clear what the reporter said, she has remarked that in the end she agrees with ABC, there was not enough to confirm and then other reports about Epstein were not stopped. History already has shown that O’Keefe and Project Veritas are experts on finding frustrated **opinion **that is turned by the right wing media as “fact”.
And again, a lot of the lack of confirmation was due to Epstein and other guys like Pecker (National Enquirer) that tampered with witnesses, victims and evidence.
As the evidence shows, the conspiracy was from Epstein, and other powerful guys tampering with witnesses and evidence, aided also by what turned to be very conservative and reactionary media guys like Pecker at the National Enquirer.
We don’t know that Ramirez lied, but it is far more likely than that she told the truth. Because all of the claims you made about her story are false.
Also untrue - I said nothing of the sort.
Cite.
This is a denial. You are wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
Neither of the above. The standard of what constitutes corroboration is different when it comes to Republicans, as we have seen from Kavanaugh and Covington and so on. When it threatens their ability to run puff pieces on the British royal family, or Hillary’s chances in an election, then the standard immediately becomes much higher.
Regards,
Shodan
They all came from the New Yorker story about Ramirez’s allegations. If you have a cite that this story inaccurately reported these assertions, feel free to provide it.
This is not a denial, and Keyser has specifically stated that she believes Ford’s account is truthful and accurate:
Keyser “does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account.”
She does not refute Ford’s account, and she believes Ford’s account. Your assertion about Keyser is factually inaccurate.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
This thread should be about ABC and/or Epstein. Drop all other hijacks including Ford, Kavanaugh, Clinton, etc. unless directly related to Epstein or ABC.
[/moderating]
Didn’t see the note when I posted.
Regards,
Shodan
Assuming that Clinton (and Trump, in the same way) is directly related to Epstein… I wonder who would have been harmed more if ABC had run the story?
Even if only 10 % of the story is true, why was it dropped and not pursued. Think of all the children that were exploded. Pisses me off.
Because responsible journalists dont publish stuff without verification.
I’m going to call bullshit on this. The media does run with stuff an if it’s found to be unverifiable, it’s retracted. But, he was in jail for the sexual offender. So a follow up on other victims shouldn’t be swept under the rug.
That’s second sentence is actually the part that’s often bullshit. People have been complaining for decades that news organizations are far too often lax about fact-checking and just throw crap about there then quietly retract after the fact. Now suddenly it should be “publish and damn the torpedoes”?
There have certainly been credible allegations that certain stories get quietly suppressed for politics/money/expediency reasons at times( see for example Ronan Farrow’s recent accusations against NBC and the Weinstein story ). So it’s not such an outré idea. But in the absence of the writer being upset about this one I’m inclined not to get that outraged about it myself. Because there is also and long and storied tradition of mud-slinging propaganda. Suetonius is a lot more interesting for his juicy gossip, but I wouldn’t put too much credence in many of his personal details.
I love you 