Ah, that explains it. Your post was still on my screen when I hit the quote button. Anyhow, looks like we agree at least on this much. 
Never put your finger on the trigger until the gun has cleared the holster. Toe be, or not toe be, that is the question…
Is that why Feinstein kept it secret? So that they could thoroughly check it out?
Although Ms. Newman’s article also says:
(my emphasis)
And in the case I highlighted:
Montgomery served four years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Why? Her lawyer is on record, and it’s been widely reported, that Ford has agreed to it. And Grassley scheduled the session.
You think the lawyer is mistaken and that Grassely scheduled the session without an agreement from Ford?
If she wants to see her allegations considered by the Senate (well, committee at least) then she has a chance to do so.
“No u” again? Really?
And??
You’re saying that a statement that false rape accusations never have serious consequences would be false. That’s not the statement she makes.
But none of that has any bearing on the thread topic. The worst that might happen to Kavanaugh on account of this is that he might not be elevated from a Circuit Court judgeship to the Supreme Court. And frankly, that’s not something we should be concerned about, any more than we should have been concerned about Merrick Garland’s personal feelings. We’re trying to do what’s right for the country. The nominee should be treated in a professional and civil manner, but that’s as much as we owe the nominee.
Wait, are you accusing the Dems of cherry-picking, or NOT cherry-picking? Make up your mind, OK?
I’m amused by the implication that possible mishandling by the minority party should result in the majority party refusing to investigate and consider an allegation of attempted rape against the nominee.
Agreed. She says it almost never happen. The fact that it happened once is not inconsistent with that statement.
Agreed. I just found it amusing that the very case I had thought was inconsistent with one part of her typical profile ran counter to what she says are the vast majority of cases in another area. (Profile of the accuser vs. consequences to the accused.)
I might also quibble with her logic – she seems to define “serious consequences,” as convictions and imprisonment, since she rebuts the existence of serious consequences by pointing out exoneration data. But I’d aver that “serious consequences” is a phrase that could be fairly applied to the Duke lacrosse players, even though their experience is not cataloged by the exoneration database.
But yes, you’re right: she says “almost never,” and pointing out a single instance does nothing to falsify her claim.
On the question of theatrics? Damn straight.
I was mostly referring to “theatrics” but there are certainly examples of cherry-picking as well.
So we’re back to just “possible” mishandling again. Disappointing.
It’s possible, but not likely, that Fox got it right and every other news outlet got it wrong. I guess we’ll see.
I understand (by your posts) that you’re much, much more interested by whatever bad things (not involving the physical mistreatment of women) Democratic Senators might have done in this instance than whether or not Kavanaugh attempted to rape someone. It continues to amuse me that you have no problem making this so clear for everyone to see.
So, “Spartacus” is biting wit? Or wit that bites? Tighty righty humor. Military intelligence and dodo droppings.
OK, so what does your latest example have to do with either one?
-
It was the opposite of cherry-picking until an Intercept piece and her colleagues’ demands forced Feinstein’s hand.
-
The history in (1) is well known and undercuts bogus claims of theatrics.
You’re welcome.
When she said “false rape accusations almost never have serious consequences” is she talking about consequences for the falsely accused or the* false accuser?*