Um, maybe because of Kavanaugh’s unfitness of character for high office, much like his nominator’s (and his party fellows in the Senate)?
Is that a trick question, or just another attempt at slinging shit in hopes of obscuring the key points?
Open a thread asking what politically-oriented sites and whatnot Dopers follow. I might chime in there.
Who is JM? What does he have to do with PJ?
There are a million ways to parse a written statement like that. I agree on its face it isn’t intended to support the accuser. Good investigation into the statement would be more revealing than the selective impression left by that statement.
Take the accusations apart. Did JM remember being at any house parties in the early eighties in Montgomery County, MD with with Judge and Kavanaugh? Was Ford at any of these parties? Did Judge and Kavanaugh get rip-roaring drunk at any party or parties that Ford, Judge and Kavanaugh attended together? What kind of music was played and how loudly? Where was this party? Who else attended?
The answers to these questions, which aren’t covered by that statement could be illuminating. For what it’s worth, it’s the kind of investigation that could be conducted by the FBI.
According to Ford’s account, there is no particular reason for anyone other than she, Kavanaugh, and Judge to know about the attempted rape Ford asserts, in fact, that Kavanaugh took pains to conceal the attempted rape from other partygoers, by playing loud music, by sequestering her in a bedroom upstairs, and by blocking her mouth when she tried to scream. If JM’s statement is intended only to indicate that he does not recall an attempted rape, that is entirely consistent with Ford’s story.
I don’t recall anyone by that name. Is this an attempt at insulting Fotheringay-Phipps? A typo? A riddle you’re hoping I’ll solve?
JM is John Mace, the Doper that posted here a few minutes ago about “PJ”.
Because the analogy would be that you have a panel of job interviewers, half of which do not care about the candidate’s qualifications at all, but would do anything (possibly) short of illegality to ensure that the candidate does not get the job. These half of the interviewers do not follow proper process and are simply attempting to delay consideration of the candidate until they possibly could get more members on the committee to find a different candidate.
In that case, the panel should insist that proper procedure be followed and that the candidate be considered on the merits and upon previously agreed rules.
Even in a death penalty criminal case, the defense cannot spring witnesses on the court or the State at the last minute, witnesses whom they knew about six weeks prior, and insist on a continuance. The defense cannot argue, “But Judge, we can’t put someone to death without a complete investigation!!!” There are rules.
If this was so bad, the Feinstein could have questioned him about it during the hearings.
Why should I care if John Mace remembers being at the party? I don’t think Ford named him as an attendee.
That’s your side of the story.
If I give you a few months to figure it out, I bet you’re up to it. :rolleyes:
Joseph DiGenova, one of Trump’s lawyers, accuses Dr. Ford of literally being a lunatic.
I think it would be helpful if you went back and re-read posts #1669 and #1674. No snark intended.
Yes, and can you see how my story differs from Spartacus’? In my side of the story, no one’s hand was pushed away. In his side, his was. That’s an indication of unwanted sexual touching, isn’t it?
Borrowed from here:
Lying to the FBI is a crime.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford wants to talk to the FBI.
Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t want to talk to the FBI.
Kavanaugh’s friend & witness Mark Judge doesn’t want to talk to the FBI.
They all know lying to the FBI is a crime.
My interpretation is that it’s probably intended as an insult, albeit a nonsensical one.
What again was the Republican approach against Anita Hill? The words “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” come to mind …
In fairness, it is not. One could say, “I can say with assurance that nothing like the event described ever happened.” In my experience, “I don’t recall” are weasel words which allow a person to deny an allegation (whether true or not) but if other evidence pops up proving what they didn’t recall, then they are not subject to perjury because they did not say that it didn’t happen, just that he doesn’t recall it happening.
However, such a thing is always subject to a “Bailey v. Fuhrman” type of exchange as follows:
Q: So, by saying you don’t recall it happening, it is possible that it did happen, yet as you sit here you have no recollection of it?
Then the person must either agree with the question and it is out there that it could have happened, or the person doubles down and opens himself up to perjury.
Well, Lindsay Graham is saying they’re going to hold a vote next Wednesday whether she testifies or not. While one would think he would not say that if they didn’t have the votes, I honestly think that’s a good idea. If he doesn’t make the cut, back to the drawing board. If he does make the cut, then I’m sure that will motivate whoever this pisses off to vote.
Should Kavanaugh be innocent in this case, no one here has offered ANY air tight way to absolve him of these allegations, so any concern about this “hanging over his head” is misplaced. It’s out there, and always will be out there, for the rest of his life. You cannot prove that something didn’t happen at an unknown time/date/location in the early 1980s. Impossible.
Lying to a Senate Committee is also a crime. So we can turn that around.
Plus, your cite is misleading in that the FBI does not want to talk to those people, not the other way as you described.
Nope, you’re still not getting it. And you’re still not considering your faction’s own principle-free desperation for a “win”.
When did *that *become a principle for them? 
Once again: This isn’t a trial, it’s a job interview, for a lifetime position.
Now try again.
None taken.
Here is an article indicating that the purported “PJ,” Patrick J. Smyth wrote a letter saying in part:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/pj-smyth-brett-kavanaugh/index.html
That statement is entirely intended to support Kavanaugh but it fails to do so very convincingly for me. It can be reasonably read to suggest that Smyth never attended any alcohol-fueled house party with Kavanaugh, Judge, and Ford. That would certainly dispute Ford’s account. However, there is a good reason that we don’t generally allow hearsay statements into evidence in court. It’s because you can’t cross-examine the witness to know what they are leaving out.
The letter just raises more questions for me. Did Smyth attend alcoholic house parties with Kavanaugh and Judge? How well did he know Ford? Does he know Ford well enough that he would even remember that she attended these parties? And I’d still like to ask all the questions above.
He says he doesn’t want to testify to safeguard his privacy. I can understand that but he wasn’t interested in safeguarding his privacy earlier in this process when he signed a testimonial letter describing Kavanaugh as “singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Now that there is reason to question his recommendation, he seems unwilling to stand behind it by testifying. What does he have to hide? Again, an FBI investigation could help us make that determination. If he really knows nothing about these events, he never has to testify before Congress. If their investigation reveals that Smyth seems to be concealing something, or if his statements lead to other evidence confirming Ford’s account, Congress ought to consider that before confirming Kavanaugh.