Oddly, I have not seen hardly any GOP defense of K. Instead they have attacked Ford: she is lying, she isn’t really a psychologist, that isn’t her real name, it was her fault since she should have known better, she was hired by Feinstein, etc. Attacking the victim, rape apology, the Big Lie.
Actually, what I asked Shodan, I’d like to invite the OP and others who support their view to comment on: what is the “right,” in your opinion, thing to do with the allegations against Kavanaugh? Not even going to ask about generalities yet. What specific actions, if any, should be taken right now in regards to Kavanaugh, Ford, Feinstein, and anyone else you care to name?
I am saying exactly what I did say. There is no good evidence that establishes the first - it is an unsubstantiated allegation. I have nowhere insisted that Dr. Ford manufactured the allegation.
I have no way to tell where Dr. Ford got her allegation. Maybe she made it up, maybe it happened exactly as she (sort of) described, maybe she was talked into it by a therapist the way other “recovered memories” have done, maybe she conflated another memory of being sexually assaulted with a memory of Brett Kavanaugh, who knows.
Her allegation against Kavanaugh is unsubstantiated. There is nothing to back it up. There is no physical evidence, it cannot be definitely established exactly where or when it happened, none of the other people who were alleged to be there back her up, she made no contemporaneous mention of the fact, nor connected Kavanaugh to the incident until last July, 36 years after the fact.
None of which proves it didn’t happen. None of it is good evidence that it did.
Investigate Dianne Feinstein to find out who on her staff leaked the document in violation of Dr. Ford’s wishes.
Regards,
Shodan
So to be clear, you would advocate that Ford’s accusation be ignored and not formally investigated in any way directly, correct? Or no?
The possibility that Kavanaugh might not be confirmed makes an investigation a really, really bad idea in the eyes of most Republicans, it appears, including Trump who is doing everything possible to make sure the investigation uncovers nothing.
In this post: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21241755&postcount=53
You are asked why you insist “it” is “creating false allegations against someone before they take power”, and you didn’t answer “I don’t insist that”, but rather “Because there is no good evidence” that Ford’s accusation is accurate.
If you’re taking that back, then good for you, but when you answer a question that way that’s specifically about why you insist the allegation is false, then it’s reasonable for me to respond as if you insist that the allegation is false.
They already tried it with Bill Clinton.
And there’s some other politician, a Black Dem, who they are attacking with whataboutism as we speak.
The Dems very definitely hold the high ground. This is not some Dem play. This is a a creible woman coming out with her complaint.
Secret Muslim.
Birtherism.
There are hundreds of GOP lies about both Clintons, Pelosi and Obama in the archives of Snopes.
The evidence vs Franken *was *stronger. He did some stupid things to be funny.
The* allegations* were far weaker. None rose to rape.
DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.
Deny for as long as you can. Simply bald-faced lie.
Attack the person calling you on your behavior. Lying works here, too, but in this case you lie about past sins of the person you’re up against.
Reverse Victim and Offender to make it seem that the person calling you out is the Bad Guy and you’re the hapless victim in all this. Go all wounded gazelle, feign innocence, and, of course, lie your ass off.
It’s all right there in the Republican Handbook which is cleverly hidden as a psychologist’s website about betrayal trauma.
The links go into depth about Kavanaugh, however, which is how you know it’s a clever ruse meant to make you think this behavior is somehow pathological.
How do you know this is, without a doubt, true?
You yourself say that ‘such people haven’t appeared yet’, but you are 100% certain that they exist.
How do you know this?
Wait, so there’s no good evidence that it’s an accurate depiction of events (because such evidence is extremely unlikely to be forthcoming), therefore there’s good evidence that it’s entirely fabricated? There are so many problems with this logic that I don’t even know where to start. 
You literally just did. So are you walking that back, or did you mistype, or is this a misunderstanding (that somehow has been going on for a few dozen pages of one thread and both pages of this one), or… what?
Err… You do realize that this was before he was the nominee, right?
Priorities! Has Dr. Ford asked for this?
You LEFT OUT brother Jeb. Old “Low energy Jeb” just doesn’t get any respect.
No. But think about it - an anonymous accusation, from someone who does not the matter pursued, who offers no evidence, no corroboration, no witnesses, thirty six years after the fact, and who is not even sure exactly where or when it happened. Ford apparently wanted this anonymous accusation, in and of itself, to be used to torpedo the nomination. So Feinstein, seeing that nothing else was going to work, threw Ford under the bus, violated her wishes by leaking, or allowing to be leaked, Ford’s identity to the press. So then it was investigated, and found out that, surprise surprise, there was no evidence, no corroboration, no witnesses to back it up, and Ford didn’t even mention Kavanaugh’s name until thirty six years after the fact.
That’s why outing an anonymous accuser is a bad idea, for both the accuser and the subject of the allegation. It’s not fair to anyone. Certainly not to Ford, and not to Kavanaugh either.
Regards,
Shodan
This is like reading Shodan’s version of World War II: “First, the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!”
That must be why she tried to get it out there before Kavanaugh was nominated.
I will keep sending you this link until you read it. :mad:
and it wasn’t over!
I was talking about choosing Amy Coney Barrett over Brett Kavanaugh. I know that right-wingers have always been disappointed that Anthony Kennedy wasn’t the hard-drinking, womanizing incarnation of savage Celtic id that they expect someone named “Kennedy” to be; but that’s no reason to put a walking caricature of a drunken, woman-groping Irishman on the high court in his place.
Yes, but my idée fixe is that they chose Kavanaugh over Barrett now because they want to be able to nominate Barrett to replace Ginsburg then.
As someone who hated to see both Anthony Weiner and Al Franken get axed, let me tell you, no, no, it’s not like that. Democrats do not want to alienate the continuum of vocal women of a whole range of ages that they hope are in their base.
Maybe it was different in the 1990’s. But that was a generation ago.