That’s a tweet! A friggin’ tweet! Oh, come on!
Your burden of proof requirements are inconsistent and make you appear remarkably disingenuous.
Hopefully an investigation will be conducted that would find the answers to questions like this one.
Looks like a pile of horseshit to me. It was tweeted yesterday for one. Further, I don’t think anyone would be that stupid. Although it would be nice for Christmas to come early this year. 
Sure.
But, you were the one making the comparison without the “full story” from both sides, and in that comparison you equated what was described as going too far too fast - and ignoring the woman’s objections - with snatching someone out of the blue and trying to restrain her long enough to commit rape.
Again, do you find these things equivalent? If not, then I fail to see why you think that Mr. Booker is relevant, given that you have not presented more evidence of greater malfeasance.
I’m fine to throw Booker under the bus. Criminality is not a zero sum game. Showing that a Democrat was guilty of a crime does not absolve a Republican. That’s not how the law nor blame work. It just makes two criminals.
What “burden of proof requirements”?
Seems like a crazy thing to be coming out now. I did note, earlier in this thread, that Gorsuch went to the same high school as Kavanaugh. I think he was 2 years behind. Which makes me wonder if he has anything to say about the Kavanaugh incident.
Seems like Russian fake news to me.
Could easily happen, I guess. Republicans ram this through Committee and slam the door as hard as they can. Might not even hear the sounds as women sort through their shoes looking for that sensible and sturdy pair they don’t much like but is appropriate for ass-kicking.
Send not to know for whom the belles toll, they’re coming for thee! OK, I’m done here.
Let’s instead talk about a more interesting and better-substantiated claim: That a sitting DC Circuit judge tried to rape a girl in high school and he may be confirmed to join the Supreme Court very soon.
If all it takes is a single tweet to convince you, I’m sure I can write one.
Ken Dilanian is an intelligence and national security reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit. He’s worked for AP, the LA Times, and USA today. He tweets: [INDENT] The FBI would actually bring a lot of tools to an investigation of this alleged incident, including skilled agents with experience interviewing sex crime victims and reluctant witnesses. And the bureau would be happy to investigate, but it can only do so if the White House asks.
Wrong. The issue is not an alleged federal crime, but the FBI’s role in the background check. An FBI official tells me they are fully capable of investigating this matter, but can’t do so unless the White House asks them to.
[/INDENT] While John Mace’s issues are not addressed explicitly, I think this confirms my contention that the GOP (specifically the GOP regime currently occupying the White House) is blocking a full and fair investigation. If Kavanaugh is innocent, this is to his detriment as the charges will hang over his head for the rest of his life without the resolution that comes with subpoenas.
Generally speaking, can I recommend to my readers that they focus less on the usual suspects and more on posters like Dangerosa?
Yes, there are many. Brad DeLong: Back in my day—which was a decade and a half before Brett Kavanaugh’s—the view from the co-ed prep schools of Sidwell Friends and Georgetown Day was that, while the boys from all the single-sex prep schools needed watching, those from Georgetown Prep who showed up to parties and drank were out-of-control in an… unusual way: http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/09/current-links-1-1-1-1.html#more
What part of my post makes you think I was “convince[d]”?
I didn’t say you were convinced. I told you I could write a tweet if it would convince you.
I’m wondering why you thought this completely unsubstantiated post from a nobody was even relevant. Let the facts shake out instead of piling a bunch of bullshit on the table and telling us that maybe there’s a chestnut in there somewhere.
Modern conservatives. When cornered, they make shit up.
If the baseless and unsubstantiated allegations tweeted above are not substantiated over the next couple of days, patriots will stop following that particular mongerer of rumors. Even if they are sympathetic to his POV. Especially if they are sympathetic to his POV. I’m referring to the rando tweeter, whom I don’t want to enable by naming.
I agree with you. However, the irony. It burns!!!
Do you know what “first-hand” means? For that matter, do you know what “aftermath” or “he wasn’t in school with” mean?
Ms. King’s tweet is not first-hand. She makes no claim to have witnessed the alleged assault. She claims to have heard some rumors. And thirty five years later is not very much in the “aftermath”.
And the signed statement is also not first-hand or from anyone who witnessed the alleged assault. The only difference between the signed statement, and Ms. King’s tweet, is that the signers of the statement did know Kavanaugh well. Ms. King says she did not.
Regards,
Shodan
But she knew Ford, and knew of the incident at the time. The women who signed the letter supporting Kavanaugh have nothing to say about the incident.
One more time: Voices in your head do not count as “sources”…
FTR, I evaluate sources before I link to tweets.
I won’t link to a rando reporting information. I will link to a journalist or academic reporting information.
I might link to a rando with an opinion, especially a funny one. eg LOLGOP. Except technically not, since he publishes in the National Memo. But still, I’m not going to use him as an information source without irony. And if the opinions contain embedded falsehoods, the source doesn’t get a pass. Especially if that’s part of a pattern.
If there are instances of me rumor-mongering with links to randos, without a ton of caveats, let me know.
On a side note, hasn’t Trump done well staying off of Twitter in relation to this? Whoever convinced him of the need for this should get in his ear more often.