False
Lets see it then. He claim was she was at a gathering, in Maryland, where she was taken into a room, and was subjected to a an attempted rape by Kavanaugh, with Judge as a witness. No one else has corroborated any of this.
And no, the therapists notes and her husband/friends recollections are not corroboration, as they are not independent (they were told by her) and note close in time or space.
If, for example, someone had said that they recalled a party where both attended, that would have been corroboration of at least one part (gathering), or if someone had said they saw the three disappear, that would have been corroboration of another part (taken into a room).
Here’s an easy one. From Dr. Ford’s letter to Feinstein.
“Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.”
Corroborated or uncorroborated?
Assuming the accusers are willing to continue speaking out (and they may not be), then yes, and yes. If they are not, then they can and should pursue the possibility that Kavanaugh perjured himself (which seems extremely likely, based on all the evidence) in his testinomy.
They don’t need to make every step a spectacle. But I see no reason why they shouldn’t pursue these things. And I recall multiple Democrats saying that they would, if they were to win either the House or Senate.
:dubious: :smack:
That’s…not corroborating evidence. That’s the allegation itself. No one disputed that the parties were in private schools in Maryland and their school years overlapped.
It’s like claiming that Nicole Brown Simpson was OJ’s ex wife, therefore that is evidence he killed her…
A full investigation, including on-the-record statements under threat of perjury from all the witnesses, might actually tell us the extent of the corroborating evidence and testimony. Unfortunately, Kavanaugh refused to call for this and the Republican leadership in Congress prevented it from occurring. Now that the Democrats will have the HoR, they can opt to do a full and thorough investigation of these allegations, since one was never undertaken.
It is a claim in her account that has been corroborated. The reason why no one disputed it is precisely because it is corroborated.
It is NOT a claim in her account that has been corroborated! Do you even know what that word means?? Don’t make me go all Inigo Montoya on you. :dubious:
Since there is no indication that either Kavanaugh or Judge were the actual people involved, it would only be corroborating that they match the description if they were the only possible people who could meet that description. They are not; there are plenty of other people who could stand in for Kavanaugh and Judge and still be one or two years older than her and students at a local private school. :smack:
As for the OP:
I don’t think it mattered in the least. Heidi Heitkamp and Claire McCaskill were going to lose their seats anyway, due to the theme that emerged from the election that “red” states got redder. Thus, even if Nelson and Donnelly had not lost, the number for the Republicans would have been up to 53, giving them plenty of margin for losing states like Nevada (where they did lose) and Texas (where they didn’t).
How about the claim that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker, prone to going to drinking parties? That one’s pretty thoroughly corroborated, and should have been enough all by itself to keep him off the court.
A couple of key adjectives got dropped there.
Why does the investigation have to suspend the vote to conduct the investigation?
And where is the cry and hue for the investigation now that the confirmation has already taken place. It’s almost as if all the Democrats were really interested in was delaying he process in the hopes of winning the senate. If what they really want is justice, why aren’t they demanding it anymore?
It seemed to cause some confusion.
Gee, maybe because the results of the investigation might be useful information to those making the decision on whether this guy is appropriate for SCOTUS?
We are demanding it, and Democrats said that once they took either the House or Senate, they would make it happen. So we won the House, and we’ll get the investigation in the new year. And if we don’t, progressives like me will howl like mad at our representatives.
Right so it is convenient for them now. It wasn’t when Clinton was president.
I fully expect that you will be disappointed.
They’re doing the right thing on this issue now. That’s good, no matter why they’re doing it. Progressives like me plan to make sure they keep doing the right thing.
I couldn’t care less about your expectations.
The GOp even elected a Dead Pimp to office in NV. :eek:
I’ve long lost hope of ever trying to convince you of anything that you do not already believe. I am presenting argument for people who might still have open minds about this. I’m not talking about whether Kavanaugh did anything.
I’m asking whether the way the Democrats conducted themselves during the hearings riled up the Republicans.
I’m also asking if you think it increased Democratic voter participation any higher than the level to which Trump had already brought it.
I have some idea and so do you. This election was a repudiation of trump. There was no need to stir up the base any more than they were already stirred up by Trump.
All that was accomplished was stirring up the Republican base.
The concern was getting Kavanaugh confirmed. Republicans wanted him confirmed and Democrats didn’t. This was seen as a Democratic ploy to delay confirmation in the hopes that the election would flip the senate.
Was it a ploy of yours?