Despite the usual hyper-partisan fakery spewed by the right-wing entertainers for their dupes to parrot, e,g., ... Kavanaugh could well be innocent of the charge, and deserves to be vindicated in public view to whatever extent that is possible. Sweeping the accusation under the carpet serves no one.
Again, sweeping the charge under the carper serves no one. The truth must be pursued even if one suspects an absolute confirmation or vindication is unattainable.
Hmm... This seems problematic. The court records indicate that snopes is factually in error here. Wonder that, huh? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-against-accusers-father-1996-court-case.html So, when Snopes concludes: "Not only does the “foreclosure” claim constitute a failed, factually baseless attempt to impugn the motives of Christine Blasey Ford in giving up her anonymity to make sexual assault allegations against a would-be Supreme Court justice, but it offers a prime example of a common feature of many conspiracy theories: mistaking coincidental and tangential encounters for meaningful and substantial conflicts and connections." Snopes purposefully takes a side here. The facts of the case are all public record, Snopes cannot dispute the facts, or the fact that Kavanaugh's mom did in fact adjudicate their case. Nor can Snopes dispute the initial foreclosure decision, which effectively ruled against ms Ford's parents. Nor can Snopes deny that finding refinancing post ruling, the court then reconsidered the initial finding and ultimately dismiss the case. The folks at Snopes can only create a false assurity that their spin is better or more convincing than the set of initial contentions which clearly they are unable to do. Snopes offers zero evidence that a case for retribution doesn't exist, they admit the facts of the claims (because they are all public record and cannot contradict what is also on the internet to read publicly) but make an editorial choice to dispute the assertion without evidence. Total fail of Snopes.
Some will believe what their ideological dogma compels them to believe, and swallow whatever their ideological entertainers feed them. Did Judge Martha Kavanaugh ‘Rule Against’ the Parents of Her Son’s Accuser, Christine Blasey-Ford? Right-wing web sites concocted a cynical (and grossly inaccurate) conspiracy theory about a woman who has accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. CLAIM: In a 1996 foreclosure case, Judge Martha Kavanaugh ruled against Ralph and Paula Blasey, thus providing motive for revenge for their daughter Christine against Judge Kavanaugh's son Brett, a Supreme Court nominee in 2018. Crackpot right-wing propaganda sites such as Pacific Pundit and Powerline alleged the allegations were motivated by revenge, centering on a 22-year-old civil case heard in Montgomery County, Maryland. Their accounts got only the background facts right while wildly misrepresenting the key details and amounting to a gross misrepresentation of what actually took place. Martha Kavanaugh did preside for certain parts of a 1996 foreclosure case involving Ralph and Paula Blasey, who are indeed Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. However, Kavanaugh actually ruled favorably toward the Blaseys, who ended up keeping their home. RATING FALSE https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-foreclosure-accuser-parents/
Unless she can provide proof or witnesses his confirmation should move forward. It is hard to take her seriously when you take into account how long it was, how long the Judge has been in the public eye, and her political activities before now. On the other hand if she can provide proof or witnesses then throw the guy out on his but.
^^^^ at Natty. I do believe that I actually laid this out. That Snopes took a side is the issue here. Your observation about ideological allegiance is actually correct, as long as it's applied directly to the folks at Snopes. Which actually was the issue, and the reason they did, in fact fail. They aren't "fact checking here, they're creating propaganda.
Anyone with a transparent, knee-jerk agenda needs to endure the pursuit of truth. (We heard the same defensive attempts to suppress and discredit charges against Bubba Clinton.) Allowing the accuser to state her account under oath and be questioned about it, and the accused extended the same courtesy, is a course some hyper-partisans fear, but it is the only fair one - for both. The berserkers dung-flinging blitzkrieg at this woman is especially ill-timed give the MeToo movement, and the stampede away from the party of trumpery by an increasingly politically-involved female electorate. Parroting the fake claims of the lunatic fringe doesn't help Republicans.
I have no problem with her giving testimony, but without proof or witnesses all it is just hearsay and well times hearsay at that.
Of course, the standard of "proof" and "witnesses" of the act itself is unrealistic, and would allow most rapists to go free. She must be asked cogent questions under oath. - e,g., Had the accuser confided in anyone subsequently? If so, how specific were her accounts, and how reliable were those in whom she confided? One essential requirement is that the reported "witness" Mark Judge, be called to testify, as well as any others who have information to offer. McConnell would, no doubt, like to adhere to the Clarence Thomas paradigm when Biden, as Chairman, did not allow others who accused Thomas such as Angela Wright Shannon to testify, but times have changed.
If this was a trial perhaps, but at the end of the day they are not a part of a trial and no guilt or innocence is going to be proven. Their testimony is going to be on the record and that will be the end of it unless she has some kind of hard evidence. If she wanted to pursue this she should have done it back in the Bush years when he started appearing in the public eye. Now it just looks like a politically motivated hit job by a disgruntled activist.
The pattern of victims being reluctant to relate such sexual attacks is now far to well documented for the old "You waited too long to be believed" excuse to sell. Calling the alleged witness, Mark Judge, as a character witness for "Bart O'Kavanaugh" might provide insights into the alleged attack and his behavior patter at the time.
She has not yet agreed to testify. Drive by accusations. A Republican U.S. Senate committee chairman said on Tuesday the woman who has accused President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago has not yet agreed to appear at a public hearing set for next Monday. Committee Democrats, already fiercely opposed to the nominee, wrote a letter to Grassley objecting to the planned format of the hearing, which was announced on Monday, including having just Kavanaugh and Ford as witnesses. “We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours, three or four times by email, and we’ve not heard from them. So it kind of raises the question ... do they want to come to (the) public hearing or not?” Grassley said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-not-agreed-to-testify-senator-idUSKCN1LY2E4 What happens if she doesn't show? Why are democrats opposed to just having the witnesses appear?
No valid answer choices for the poll. The answer is "No, the accusation is too vague." There are no specifics--no date/time/location, etc. There is no way Kavanaugh can defend himself from such a vague accusation. IMHO, it probably happened to this lady, but wasn't Kavanaugh.
They want an actual investigation, I think. Though this comes with delaying things further, which they also want. Just interviewing two people without trying to identify additional leads is fumbling in the dark. I mean, better than nothing - could give republicans some cover to show they take sexual assault seriously, and that's why they're doing it. Ford most likely doesn't want to testify because she will be ripped to shreds by a gang of seasoned lawyers, whether she's telling the truth or not. Anita Hill's testimony did not look like much fun.
What a narrow-minded set of choices! It doesn't follow that everyone who hates Trump would disapprove and it also doesn't follow that everyone who likes Trump would disapprove. I don't like Trump, but he is the president and gets to choose. I don't like Kavanaugh, not because he is unqualified, but because he is a deeply entrenched swamp creature. He is qualified, though, and one of the perks of being potus is getting to choose, so he should be confirmed. We don't need another Thomas confirmation process... ugh that was ugly and highly unnecessary. So, which option should I select?
It's a vague accusation with no details--if he loses this nomination, no man in any high position will ever be able to pass a nomination process, as some vague sexual accusation will be created about him. In addition, the timing of Feinstein's revelation was political. If she thought it was true, it would have come out in the summer, not waiting until everything else to derail the nomination failed.
That means there's nothing to investigate? Do you remember the month of every party you went to, or even the significant ones where you got laid or beat up?
I would have if it were a traumatic event that took 5 years to recover from, per the accuser. The problem is there is no evidence other than the testimony of the accuser. There is nothing to investigate.
Talk about dirty politics - Democrats dumped a false allegation in the final hour as a last ditch attempt to stop Trump from doing his job as president and appointing SCOTUS judges. Very sad.
If she doesn't agree to testify Brett Kavanaugh (aka Bart O'Kavanough) will be approved. If the alleged witness can offer testimony regarding the incident, or other women can offer pertinent examples of his behavior, how would it add to a better understanding of the matter if they were prevented from testifying?
Reportedly, the alleged witness, Mark Judge, friend of Brett Kavanaugh (aka Bart O'Kavanough) is refusing to testify. It is possible that no one is lying here. Brett Kavanaugh (aka "Bart O'Kavanaugh") and Mark Judge could well have been too drunk to remember the alleged attack, if Judge's memoirs are truthful. Judge's account, "Wasted" includes a character named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who drinks to the point of passing out and vomiting.
The optics of this restricted ritual, if McConnell can stage it, could be extremely detrimental to the Party of Trumpery in November.
