I think most Americans think the Dems lost the battle and probably won’t be in love with the Dems trying a do over. I understand you wuz robbed, but I’m afraid it’s over now unless you come up with something a lot more interesting than this.
It’s quite possible that one of my friends may not believe my story of a guy in a MAGA hat masturbating in a coffee shop. Does that mean that I fabricated my story?
I don’t believe you.
…no im not referring to your story. I don’t believe that one of your friends wont believe you.
Would you give this friend’s name as a witness to the masturbation incident? That’s the only way your story becomes parallel with the Ford story.
Ok, so I actually read the transcript of what he said to Congress.
Here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/ <washington post>
*MITCHELL: Prior to your nomination for Supreme Court, you’ve talked about all of the female clerks you’ve had, and the women that you’ve worked with. I’m not just talking about them; I’m talking about globally. Have you ever been accused, either formally or informally, of unwanted sexual behavior?
KAVANAUGH: No.
*
Unwanted sexual behavior would include dropping your pants in front of people who obviously don’t all consent to such act if it’s in some social gathering.
I notice a loophole here: apparently Kavanaugh could have engaged in all the unwanted sexual behavior he wanted, so long as no one has ever said anything to him about it. In fact, in the case of Dr. Ford, after he left her alone she never said anything to him after that per her own testimony.
Plus, they were given only a week to do it.
But not everyone was actually paying attention at the time, or wanted to, apparently.
If you told us “My friend was there too. He saw it.” and he says “I don’t remember that at all” then it starts to look that way.
There were probably 70 people in the store who didn’t see it. So, Justice MAGA Masturbator shouldn’t have his name sullied, eh?
Some Fox hosts seem to accept the allegations as likely true, but argue that we shouldn’t be firing people thirty years after teenage misbehavior.
That misses how this impacts the job of SCOTUS justice - he lied. Or at the very least, there’s very good reason to suspect he lied, and there has been nothing close to a thorough investigation of whether he lied. A SCOTUS without integrity can’t possibly function in the long term. If the population sees it as a corrupt institution, the country is in very serious trouble.
This seems like accurate punditry to me as far as it goes. But it also strikes me as weird to view this through the lens of some kind of partisan horse race reality show. Is that really the most salient angle on this to you?
Why not view this through the lens of a human concerned about our society giving one of its most honorable and prestigious positions to someone who may have repeatedly sexually assaulted women? Or through the lens of someone who thinks it is problematic to have a Supreme Court justice mislead the Senate in his confirmation? Or someone concerned that the FBI do an investigation that does not involve talking to people who told that the FBI that they had relevant information?
I don’t think talking about or investigating this raises any possibility whatsoever of removing Kavanaugh from the bench. But surely you see that there are other reasons to do so, right?
That’s not what the articles in the OP say:
Ramirez gave the FBI 25 names. The deceitful authors claim that “many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the F.B.I. on their own”, but they’ve given us no reason to believe that and several reasons not to. What number is “many”? What method(s) did they use to reach out to the FBI? What testimony, if any, were they prepared to offer? Names, dates, and quotes would go a long ways to repairing the authors’ damaged credibility here.
AFAIK, the list of named individuals who claim to have seen for themselves Ramirez touch Kavanaugh’s dick remains at just one: Ramirez. I’m certainly open to correction, and I’d imagine a good number of you would be eager to do so if I’m wrong on this. Am I?
I understand those concerns and if the allegations are true I wish he had faced some retribution. But no, even still I can’t see a Congressional investigation into the exact events of a drunken teenage party from 30+ years ago doing any good now.
And what is a “penis,” anyway? Where do I go to there? And who can say what a Brett Kavanaugh is? Who is Yale University? Why is touching your own “penis” okay but it isn’t okay to make another person touch it? Does anyone actually know how to spell “sexual asssaulllt?”
Clearly, there are a lot of unanswered questions. Millions and millions.
Should I take this as confirmation that the only person who thinks they saw Ramirez touch Kavanaugh is Ramirez herself?
And this:
I know. Let’s open an investigation, to be conducted at length until we have a good idea of what may or may not have happened. People would be interviewed under oath and their credibility could be judged. And it would probably be a good idea not to set some sort of random time period for this to happen. The investigation would go on as long as needed, no more, no less. That way, it could be determined if perhaps Kavanaugh should be impeached, or we can consider his name cleared.
Perhaps Max Stier would be a good person to start with.
And then maybe others.
Do you realize that precisely NO ONE alleges that Max Stier was at the party where Ramirez thinks she might have touched Kavanaugh? Not Ramirez, not Max Stier, not the “officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier”, not the woman whose friends say she doesn’t have any recollection of the incident. Nobody.
That seems overly narrow. Don’t you want to know why the FBI didn’t talk to these people? Don’t you want to know if Kavanaugh lied (he denies that anything remotely like this occurred, after all)? Neither of those necessarily depend on finding the exact truth of what happened 30+ years ago.
Kavanaugh is what happens when Brock Turner goes unpunished.
From my link:
I am saying this should perhaps be investigated. Thanks for pointing out to me the Ramirez details.