How did the faculty adviser let that one get through?
Kavanaugh has already denied that he did anything of the sort.
The accuser doesn’t remember when or where the party happened. It is going to be difficult, therefore, to establish who was there, if we don’t know where “there” was.
I think that “believe the woman” and “believe Kavanaugh” are both wrong, at least at this point. There isn’t enough evidence either way.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, well then, that should be good enough for the rest of us, right?
Evidence? This isn’t a trial. It’s a hiring procedure, at the stage of post-interview vetting of a candidate for a senior leadership position. It’s a decision that is very difficult to reverse and must be made responsibly, considering the future ramifications as well as the past implications of information that is uncovered. Tell us, if you’re a committee member hiring someone for a top position, and you find something like this that gives you pause about a candidate, what do you do? Dismiss it and hope it goes away, and hope that no future issues arise? What does it tell you about the candidate’s character?
I think this answer shows that you are a reliable partisans, but it also doesn’t make any sense. You wrote “added to the 4 established reliable partisans”. If you were not talking about the four liberals, and you weren’t talking about Roberts, that only leaves 3 other justices on the court, not 4. Did you miscount?
Oh the irony.
There is a problem in that we don’t know for sure whether the party was in 1982 or not. It’s possible it was in 1983, as they both would still have been in high school. I supposed 1981 is a possibility, too. But if she remembers the names of others who were there, they can be asked about “the party” and whether or not they remember it. They needn’t remember the exact date.
Also, Kavanugh has denied sexual assaulting an anonymous accuser. Now the accuse has a name, and he can tell us:
- Does he remember knowing her
- Does he remember any physical/sexual interaction they had
- Does he remember the party in question and does he remember if he was inebriated or not.
Just like Putin “strongly denied” that he had anything to do with election meddling. Just like Roy Moore “forcefully denied” that he liked to fuck teenage girls. I was to gently slap you upside the face (note, I’m not advocating violence against Shodan, just trying to make an analogy) , would you remember 40 years later what street corner I did it or what time of day it was? Maybe not, but you might remember getting slapped. Similarly, she may not remember the address of her attempted rape or the date, but she remembers the attempted rape. I think it’s quite enough to have a sexual predator in the White House and one in the Court, we don’t need two predator justices.
This week’s sign that the apocalypse is upon us. Kellyanne Conway: Ford “should not be ignored and should not be insulted. She should be heard.”
Politico’s Daniel Lippmann on twitter: https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/1041676217815105536
“@AndrewRestuccia and I called many of Kavanaugh’s 65 female HS acquittances who signed a letter supporting him. After his accuser came out on Sunday, only TWO said they still stood by him. More than two dozen didn’t respond, and two declined to comment.”
My WAG is that nobody else will remember. It wasn’t a particularly significant moment in anyone else’s life, in all likelihood, and after 35 years, the run-of-the-mill moments tend to blur together and get lost in the fog of memory.
The part of Ford’s letter that I find most disturbing is this:
If it happened as she described, it was a planned, coordinated assault.
Holy fucking shit. I didn’t think even a smidgen of daylight between Kellyanne and the rest of that crew was remotely possible.
The cynic in me is trying to find her angle here, and I assume it’s to not piss off Collins and Murkowski.
Trump Junior has gone a decidedly different route.
Yes, it’s a bit of a long shot, but the mere existence of other people might prompt Kavanaugh to refrain from a flat-out denial, lest he gets tripped up further down the road. Assuming he has some memory of the event, which he might not have even if it did happen.
She *could *also be signaling that her boss is ready to pull the plug on the guy.
So, “we called a bunch of people, most didn’t answer the phone, and half that did did not want to talk to us. Those that did maintained their position of support”? Sounds like a typical pollster’s experience.
Two dozen divided by 65 is somewhat less than “most”.
You’re welcome.
65-[25, 35]-2-2=[26,36]. That’s not zero. That’s around half of those asked. Just so we’re clear, the accurate way of parsing that Twitter post is not “we couldn’t reach anyone except for two who maintained their support”, it’s “of the 28 to 38 people we reached (let’s assume that more than two dozen means somewhere between two and three dozen), 2 maintained their support, and 26 to 36 no longer supported him.”
Because if you’ve signed an open letter on an issue of national controversy [ETA:] that’s gotten national attention [/ETA], and a reporter for a major publication calls you up about it, you’d respond pretty much the same as you would to a junk phone call.
Same result: they aren’t really standing behind what they said in the letter.
That’s not a remotely accurate parsing.
That’s not a remotely accurate parsing.