You don't know? Evidence comes to mind. Providing the FBI with when it happened, where it happened. Corroboration from people she says were there. You know, things required to confirm a conviction. Your team has called it a "job interview." Fair enough. If I'm interviewing a potential employee in whom I have great interest, who has met and exceeded my wildest dreams, who has provided many, many character witnesses by people whose judgement I trust, it would take much more than an unsubstantiated accusation for me to lose interest. Especially if the accusation was made under somewhat cloudy circumstances by a person whose motives appear less than circumspect.
Andrew Sullivan Makes Sense
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
How does that change anything? She gives you a date and address. What has changed.
The other people she claims with there, say they don't remember it happening, but what does that prove? For every human out there, a lot of things happened over 30 years ago that the person does not remember. There are 3 explanations for that.
1). It never happened
2). It happened and the individual was too drunk to remember
3). It happened but wasn't a big deal in their mind, and didn't result in a lasting memory (wasn't a big deal because it was business as usual, or wasn't a big deal because he/she didn't witness anything outrageous because he/she wasn't in the same room at the time. )
Yet, you will assume and believe that all of this is a grand strategy being orchestrated by the Democrats with no evidence at all, correct?
But what if other people had made similar accusations and when you questioned the potential employee about them, he was not fully forthcoming with you and attempted to present a picture of himself that was not true?
What if you also had other highly qualified candidates who also met and exceeded your wildest expectations? Would you not pause and consider rather you should give them a consideration given the serious accusations?
How does her motives appear less than circumspect?
I would make two observations:
One: You are correct. It is possible that Feinstein held this item 'in reserve' to avoid publicizing it in case BK's nomination was going south regardless.
Two: I do blame the democrats for allowing it to go public, as it was in their possession at the time that it did. And it didn't go public via its release to the FBI or to the committee, but rather someone in Feinstein's office deliberately chose to leak it to the press.
Something more coherent than "He drank in High School and college and since that part of my story is true so is all the rape and assault I've described".
And what is also important to remember is that one of the witnesses, Keyser, does not refute Ford's account and says that she believes Ford.
Even Mark Judge hasn't denied the incident happened. He has simply said he has no memory of the incident and he does not recall the party.
Yet, those who are so quick to want to believe Kavanaugh continue to misrepresent what Keyser has said and claim the witnesses have "refuted" Ford's claims. Kavanaugh even did this in his testimony!
Or she held it because Ford didn't want to go public and/or she didn't know what to make of the accusation.
Again, there are numerous reasons why it could have been held. There is no reason to assume a sinister motive unless you are so inclined to for partisian reasons.
Feinstein says the leak didn't come from her office and The Intercept backs her up on that. Not to mention that news of the letter leaked before the letter itself leaked. And that news probably came from Ford's friends who she told about the letter...as she testified to on Thursday.
But don't let any of this stop you from blaming Feinstein, right?
I don't think I have misrepresented what any of the "witnesses" said. I would point out that "not refuting" Ford's account does not meet (for me) a standard of accepting Ford's account. The witnesses either confirm Ford's account or they don't. It is my understanding that none of the witnesses have confirmed Ford's account. For that reason Ford's account remains unsubstantiated, at least in my opinion.
If there was one shred of contemporaneous collaboration then I could see how this thing might of got this far but outside of the magical repressed memory of one person some of you are willing to take down a man with many, many women willing to speak on his behalf. I also like to remind people that repressed memories often turn out to be false even though the person believes them 100%.
You may not like his judicial ideology but that's irrelevant, the elected President gets pick and the Senate gets to approve.
Goofy yearbook comments and drinking lots of beer in high school and college might be the stupidest reason to disqualify someone I've ever seen. A large part of Washington and the rest of the country would be disqualified if that was the real standard.
I drank barrels of beer in college, even got into some pretty good brawls. I never blacked out.
You may not like his judicial ideology but that's irrelevant, the elected President gets pick and the Senate gets to approve.
Goofy yearbook comments and drinking lots of beer in high school and college might be the stupidest reason to disqualify someone I've ever seen. A large part of Washington and the rest of the country would be disqualified if that was the real standard.
I drank barrels of beer in college, even got into some pretty good brawls. I never blacked out.
Last edited:
But one of the witnesses has been clear that she believes Ford. And another witness (Judge) clearly has a motive to lie. This is all matters too.
No one has outright refuted Ford from what I've seen.
I am on record in being against the need for another investigation. I lost that argument. I will be surprised if the new investigation turns up any evidence of a sexual assault, which, as I understand it is the primary reason given for denying the confirmation. What will not surprise me is if the investigation confirms all our suspicions that in high school and college he drank beer to excess, and was a combative sob when he was drunk. I have known many people, men and women, for whom that is true. IMO that does not prove unfitness for the office. Now if that behavior had persisted well into his adulthood that would be cause for concern. By all accounts - at least to this point in time - that does not seem to be the case with this man.
The witness also claims to have never met Kavanaugh and doesn't remember one detail of ever being at a party with him present. All her declaration of believing Ford is nothing more than a friend lending moral support. Doesn't come close to being proof of anything.
How do you refute an accusation that has no collaboration?
This is a preposterous argument! You believe Ford's account as well. Should the Senate rely on your belief in making its decision? Because you and Been believe her should you be called to testify? My point is that confirmation of the accusation is, or at least should be, the standard by which guilt or innocence is proven. Not refuting an allegation is quite different from confirming the allegation. I know you are intelligent enough to understand this.
Yet you claim to be against an investigation into said accusation, PD.
It’s just another dog-chasing-his-tail scenario here.
Like her "fear" of flying? She did a lot of things in that Senate hearing that a professional interviewer would have issues with truthfulness. Particularly looking to her attorneys when searching for an answer, she wanted confirmation she was giving the right answer. She also looked down a lot when she gave answers this is a very obvious tell for not being truthful.
None of this things are full proof, nervousness can contribute but they would certainly be red flags for a lot of interviewers or therapists.
I've never posted I believe her account. I don't know who is telling the truth, hence the reason I called for a further investigation. How many times do I have to post this Ponca?
Have we been named as witnesses? Nope. Have I said I believe her? Nope.
All I'm saying is that it goes to Ford's character for truthfulness that one witness says she believes her. It very well could be based on a friendship bias as well.
I'm willing to acknowledge it all. Are you?
What about her fear of flying?
Not uncommon at all. She isn't a professional lawyer like Kavanaugh is. She walked into the lion's den Thursday having never experienced anything like that before. Place yourself in her shoes.
Nervousness? Yeah, I would say so.
I didn't imply any motive in my post. The timing raises questions, and I don't believe Feinstein has given any reasonable addressing of it but it is what it is.
As to the leak: I don't know it was Feinstein. I do know it was a Democrat, as they were the only ones who had this letter and the letter itself was leaked. Whether Feinstein, the state congresswoman or the doctor herself did it is irrelevant. I do find it strange though that you defend the first action with the Doctor wanted it held anonymously and defend the second with the Doctor's own people leaked the story.
But my real issue with Feinstein is irrefutable. She deliberately withheld relevant data regarding the confirmation of a SC nomination as a sitting member of the committee whose job it is to review that exact nomination. What's really funny is the hypocrisy of her withholding that information while whining that the White House was withholding some of BK's Bush White House docs.
She flies regularly to far away places yet she couldn't get to Washington for a week because of her "fear" of flying and she was going to drive to Washington. Turns out she was on the East Coast, flew back to CA and then flew back to Washington.
That's your idea of truthfulness?
That's your idea of truthfulness?
You lost me on that one. I'm not sure what you are saying. I did not think another investigation would result in any evidence of a sexual assault. I believed it was another delaying tactic by the Democrats, nothing more. The Republicans (and the President) agreed to another investigation. I lost that argument. I still don't think any evidence will be produced. If I'm wrong I will readily admit it.
Just because one has a fear of flying doesn't mean one doesn't fly. I know people who have a fear of flying and yet still fly. I don't recall her saying her fear of flying was debilitating.
And my understanding is that she preferred not to fly to D C. but then she did when she realized she would have to go there to testify instead of the committee coming to her.
Think about it though, conservative media is trying to discredit her over her fear of flying comments. Kinda of weak in my opinion.
1) I am way too lazy to reread all your Kavanaugh/Ford posts to confirm whether you have said you agree with her account. I have no reason to believe you are lying. There would be no reason for you to lie about it. I accept this assertion. Surely you will agree that the tenor of your comments throughout this entire ordeal has been believing Ford/disbelieving Kavanaugh.
2) Of course you have not been named witnesses, that would be ridiculous. You are intentionally obfuscating the point. The point is that Ford's friend can be called as a character witness. No one should have a problem with that. Ms. Ford could ask you and Been to be character witnesses if she wanted. Kavanaugh has produced dozens of character witnesses, Ford should be afforded the same opportunity. But her character witness saying she believes Ford should carry no weight as actual evidence any more than Kavanaugh's witnesses saying they believe him.
3) Does that satisfy as my acknowledging it all?
Not at all. I have consistently posted that my position was for a further investigation because I don't know who is telling the truth. I also don't believe this is some grand left-wing conspiracy either.
Again, it can go to Ford's character for truthfulness. I agree the same is true for Kavanaugh's witnesses as well.
It was her legal team that asserted that her "fear" of flying prevented her from testifying in Washington.
Then it turns out they didn't communicate to her that the committee WAS willing to come to CA and interview her in private. She seemed to be caught off guard by this revelation in the hearing.
This is what happens when you hire anti-Trump activists instead of lawyers working on behalf of their client regardless of their political ideology.
This woman has been taken advantage of by Democrats and her political hit squad legal team. She is a troubled person and nothing she alleges is supported by anyone or any evidence and I believe that is what the FBI will find. Democrats will then attack the FBI. "Rush job", "biased" they only support the FBI when they are going after a Republican.
The one with Matt Damon, the guy who, a scant 9 months ago said in a published interview that he would spend $10MM and up to 10 years dragging anyone who accused him of any sexual misconduct through the mud and the legal system?
I guess it was hilarious because of that irony?
Last edited:
Why does one witness who believes Ford warrant more credibility than the 60 who have already vouched for BK?
Why do the 60 people who vouched for BK have more credibility than the one witness?
Mr. Matlock, how can Leland Keyser be a witness when she says she wasn't there?
I never said they did. Just find it strange that her story must be true because one person believes her, yet the left refuses to believe him even though over 60 people have vouched for his character.
I’m interested in facts and truth here, because if it’s all bogus and Kavanaugh isn’t to blame, heads should roll IMO.
That being said, I personally feel her case is strengthening.
If her case were strengthening the Democrats wouldn’t demand an open ended investigation after THEY AGREED to a limited one. And bringing up his demeanor and how he may have lied/mis-charecterized some aspect of his past drinking or about things that were written in a yearbook 36 years ago.
Last edited:
No one posted that her story "must" be true because one of the witnesses believes her.
