YOUR CNN article said this:
Did you not read your own source?
Presumably Ford, because she’s the only one that thinks the party happened. Admittedly, CNN does a shitty job of reporting the source of the allegation.
This is just an ignorant comment.
Maybe *you *would just throw your hands up in the air, but luckily the FBI employs people with a little more energy.
Reminds me of a guy I used to know who thought the pyramids were built by aliens because “people weren’t capable of doing that.” No, *he *wasn’t capable of doing that, but the human race has an entire bell curve of competence and most of them are on the other side from him.
Apparently the Senate Panel has been investigating.
…do you understand what “alleged” means?
Who alleged she was at the party? Ford? Or the committee investigator?
The source of the allegation doesn’t appear to be Ford at all. It appears to be the committee staffer who identified Keyser. The committee staffer who used the very specific phrasing “I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article”. That statement makes me think they don’t know if Keyser is the witness at all.
Its a fishing expedition. Part of the smear campaign. And it appears to be working. Well done you.
It’s the job of the victim to provide evidence. Otherwise there is no case. No evidence, no case. Currently there is zero evidence provided by Ford who made the charge. That’s slander.
It’s the job of the judiciary committee to investigate what anything brought to them. Which wasn’t done. Deliberately.
From the CNN article you linked to, it sure seems like Ford’s lawyer thinks Keyser was supposedly at the party:
…that both doesn’t mean that Keyser is the “witness” in question, and all we know about the witness is that “Ford named two other teenagers who she said were at the party.” So this other witness was probably never going to be able to say anything more than what Keyser has said, which is unsurprising. Nothing is refuted.
You don’t appear to be reading your own cite.
It’s quite straightforward. No one is backing up her story.
Regards,
Shodan
…I read the cite.
Who identified the individuals? Were there only four individuals at the party?
Can you confirm that Keyser is the person that Ford was talking about? Can you provide a direct quote from Ford? If it was Keyser, how could Keyser back up the story if she didn’t know about the story?
That’s not slander. It can be true even if the only evidence is the victim’s testimony. Testimony is, in fact, “evidence.”
Utterly wrong.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
…concession accepted.
Anyone else want to have a go at answering my questions?
And now comes this puff piece from the Washington Post, seeking to persuade readers that Christine Blasey Ford was so traumatized by her alleged groping at the age of 15 that after high school some 2 or 3 years later, she left her former life of private schools, country clubs and moneyed privilege in the D.C. area and “never moved back,” opting instead to flee 3,000 miles away to California (after first obtaining her undergraduate degree in North Carolina) and start wearing blue jeans and surfing…oh, and also to pick up her Masters and her Ph.D at notable California universities.
Yes, it’s true. She fled all the way to North Carolina and then to California, forever forsaking life as she knew it in Maryland, because a stumbling drunk kid of 17 groped her over her clothes at a party when she was 15.
And now, apparently, even California may not be far enough away, as she’s been researching such far away places as New Zealand in which to relocate her family in the event Kavanaugh makes it onto the Supreme Court.
Surprisingly, the article includes mention of her having belonged to quite a party girl social circle during her tender years at school in Maryland.
And then there’s this little tidbit:
I’m sorry, but give me a friggin’ break! Ford goes to a school where the girls are trying to make themselves more desirable to boys by having their skirts hemmed shorter, using fake I.D.s, and boozing it up at the homes of whoever’s parents were out of town. And then they would then also rent houses for alcohol-fueled, unchaperoned, “bacchanals” they called "Beach Week,’ and would apparently cavort in other houses and in friends’ basements in a similar manner.
The boys were a caution, however, trying to get the girls drunk and to do whatever they could manage to do with them. (Who’da thunk that, right?)
And yet here we have young Christine Blasey, a member of this group of sneaky, misbehaving party girls, not only stone sober and behaving innocently at a party of teenagers involving swimming, swim suits and alcohol, and aware of the boys’ history of trying for what they could get from the girls, so traumatized by this one event that her entire life has been altered forevermore (despite the fact she bravely held her head high, wore white and carried red roses at her high school graduation, thereby professing the fact, presumedly, that she still qualified as virginal despite the groping she allegedly suffered two or three years before).
Good friggin’ grief!
The authors of that article should be shot! First, they try to portray Ford’s very common move to an out-of-state school in order to pursue her Masters and Ph.D as an emotional flight from the memory of what happened that fateful night, and then they completely undercut the narrative of her as a sober, naive, innocent schoolgirl totally unprepared for the possibility that drunken boys might try to have their way with her by outlining the fact that such scenarios were commonplace amongst her social circle.
I’m more dubious now of both her story and of her alleged trauma than I was before reading that silly article. It certainly did her no favors.
so that’s who you want on the Supreme Court? Someone with a history of excessive drinking, excessive partying, and believable groping accusations?
This sounds an awful lot like you’re blaming the victim. Like she had it coming.
That’s an utterly disgusting and reprehensible attitude, and I hope you’re ashamed of it.
I would have no trouble endorsing Kavanaugh or anyone else who misbehaved as a juvenile of 17, but has led an exemplary life since, for anything.
I should add that I’m not convinced Kavanaugh is guilty, but in lieu of the way he’s lived his life since, I’d have no problem with it if he were.
No, I’m not ashamed for what you think my comments sound like.
I wasn’t hoping for my sake, I was hoping for your sake.
I’d advise you to keep that disgusting opinion safely on anonymous message boards. People in real life might react with shocked disgust, and they would be right to do so.
Dude, she could have sexually serviced every schoolboy in the county and their Dads and it still would not excuse what she claims.
Her allegations are dubious on their own merits, no need to add speculation.
Is my opinion truly disgusting, or do you perhaps have a bias which leads you to an interpretation of it that you find disgusting?
Here, I’ll spell it out: In the event Ford is telling the truth, I do not believe she asked for it.
I do, however, question her sobriety (and therefore her memory). And in light of the goings-on within her social circle, I question the validity of her alleged trauma, especially since it seems only to have been realized years after the fact: