His calendar says there was a margarita machine and Ford is alleging it was a keg party. :smack: (this is a joke)
Seriously, just deny it and be done with it. What a nerd.
What the heck is up with the NYT, lately?
(from your link; emphasis mine)
Re: calendars. I think that is largely the point.
Okay. What the fuck does that have to do with rape? Are you saying what the boys want is rape?
I knew lots of partying hard nerds, studied hard then partied hard … but none who put the parties into their planners.
…this is really ridiculous.
I asked for a cite.
You and others kept pushing me back to cites that didn’t say what you claimed they said.
Whats the difference with this cite?
It was published after the cites I quoted.
It cites the Washington Post, which does indeed identify Ford as saying that Keyser was at the party. But as the partisan website Red State points out the Washington Post didn’t release the name.
Ford didn’t release the name.
The name was released by the committee. The committee doesn’t state where they got the name. I strongly suspect based on the statement released that they didn’t have the name and the approach to Keyser was a fishing expedition. Once the name was in the public domain the Washington Post verified the name. In that order.
Keyser was never a witness to what happened. Calling Keyser a witness is really a gross mischaracterization of what Ford said in the original interview, which was
That was the full extent of her original statement. Keyser was at the party. If there were a number of other people there why would she remember somebody she had never met before and didn’t know?
From your most recent cite:
The only remarkable thing about this entire sequence of events was that the committee chose to release Keyser’s name. They didn’t release the name for any other reason but as an attack on Ford’s credibility. The names of the people who attended the party aren’t materially important or relevant to Ford’s claims which is why the Washington Post probably chose not to publish them. Keyser’s original response through her lawyer has been mis-characterized as Keyser “Rejects Kavanaugh’s Accuser’s Allegations.” That literally isn’t what happened. That is not true. This is propaganda.
‘New York Times’ Gets Rid of Copy Editors; Mistakes Ensue
It still is a careful newspaper. Just not as careful as it was when it comes to copy editing issues like the one you showed us.
Never.
Those issues have already been decided upon. The question was raised, investigation was asked, by the wisdom of absolute partisan support, 11-10, it was decided that no such investigation was warranted. Same with Sen Leahey’s question about stolen documents appearing magically in his hand. Investigation requested, no, fuck you, you can’t make us, eleven to ten.
Mr Kavanaugh was hired by Mr Starr straight out of law school. After his years as a political operative, he was deemed qualified for the Federal bench. From there, he has rocketed to great heights due to his loyalty and brilliance. The full glory of that brilliance must remain clouded, as the records of his years serving the Bush White House are not available to mere citizens. His brilliance we are asked to take on faith, his loyalty is undoubted.
So, no, they will permit the Committee to address those questions when Hans Brinker skates across Hell.
Yes. He’s saying it’s natural and normal for boys, so if a girl gets raped she should have known better than to be with boys.
Damn women’s libbers, spoiled everything …
I mean, today, he’s using the calendar of his 17yr old self to deny a sexual assault - what a nerd. This will go down with the Twinkie defense.
Yeah. (Are there any professional copy editors left today, or has that job joined the ranks of buggy-whip making and key-punch machine operation?)
Maybe you didn’t know any who had a frequent-enough need of alibis to make calendar-keeping worthwhile.
I would not assume that either of us is smarter than Kavanaugh and his advisers, nor that we can sit here at our computers and understand what their full strategy is. If I had to guess, he’s probably doing this because he knows they are going to ask him how much partying he did. Rather than just say “not much”, he can say he doesn’t really remember each party he went to, but they can look at his calendars and judge for themselves. It might be fun to speculate, but neither you nor I really know why he’s doing what he’s doing.
I don’t see evidence of any strategy other than panic and hoping to muddle through somehow.
The mind boggles. Which 17 year olds actually keep calendars? Having kept calendars when they were 17, and on paper, given the time frame, who then keeps them for 35 years?
If only a woman could have raised the issue during the hearings? Really, what’s your point?
Honestly, I’m literally just reading this thread to keep a catalogue of how disgustingly far our resident republicans are willing to go in support of rape culture. This isn’t quite as bad as the Shodan post where he said that these accusations will happen to every republican nominee, but it’s pretty far up there! We should hold a competition, and the person with the worst take on a sexual assault victim gets a very large, very shiny trophy, assuming they can catch it when it’s thrown at them.
(Speaking of which, just for reference, how many of you think that it’s impossible for the republicans to come up with a judicial nominee who won’t get accused of sexual assault like Shodan does?)
Polarizing defining moment. This seems exactly right to me, another hysterical woman.
I do wonder if it is possible for the republicans to come up with a judicial nominee who hasn’t committed sexual assault, from what has been said about how normal and common this behavior is by Kavanaugh’s defenders.
They may have a point that anyone they nominate will be accused, because anyone they nominate will be rightfully accused by someone that they sexually assaulted.
Some would take this as a time to reflect on what they are doing to nominate all these people who have committed sexual assault, but others have a different mileage, and use this time to complain about people coming forward about it.
What does it matter what order it was released in or by whom? The fundamental point you were disagreeing with yesterday was whether Ford alleged Keyser was at the party. Do you now concede that point?