Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The two are the same. She is the author of the anonymous letter Feinstein held on to for a month and a half.

So?

I can say quite truly, I never tried to sexually assault anyone in high school. I wouldn’t need to hedge that statement.

Me neither. That doesn't mean either of us could not be falsely accused.

The credibility part comes from the fact she raised this to a psychologist 6 years ago.

Without naming him. She could have been referring to somebody else and only made it about Kavenaugh after the fact, to derail his nomination. Or she could have had him as a target that far ago, as he has been a federal appeals court judge since 2006. Or, of course, she could be telling the truth. But there is no way to know if she is.

What I find especially troubling with her claims is that she doesn't know exactly when or where the alleged assault occurred. That's a pretty significant gap in memory, don't you think?

She would have said something in 2006 most likely if he was a target.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone who at this point believes anything at face value someone from congress says is not playing with a full deck.

Curious, what universe are you posting from? In this universe, the ID of the anonymous letter has been made, ie she came forward. She has produced information confirming she exposed this alleged attack in 2012.

And finally, the GOP released a letter of 65 women who knew Kavanaugh 35 years ago, out of the bluish, proclaiming how great of a guy he was back then. I suppose we should be grateful that the letter didn't indicate "How good he was with children."

We are well pass hearsay at this point. So whatever universe you are in, please feel free to keep up with the events in this one if you plan on posting in it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He did. So did his friend Mark Judge. So it's "he said, he said, she said" at this point.

- - - Updated - - -


Why do you think it's credible? There is no corroborating evidence and she can't even remember when the alleged assault supposedly happened.

Actually Kavanaugh denied the anonymous victim, not this named person. The friend used the ‘no recollection’ response which is lawyer speak. I can say quite truly, I never tried to sexually assault anyone in high school. I wouldn’t need to hedge that statement.

The credibility part comes from the fact she raised this to a psychologist 6 years ago.

But can you say definitively you were not a conservative prep school boy trying to hump your conservative prep school friend's butt while he tried to rape a girl at a party?

 

[Derec]

Kavanaugh is a proven liar, and she's not, so she's ahead on that already.

But she is a Democratic donor and has also opposed Trump's border policy. \
Timing is also highly suspect.

The accuser,, Christine Blasey Ford, has come forward. Her account is credible. I wonder if Kavanaugh was ever asked by the FBI about it.

Why do you think it's credible? There is no corroborating evidence and she can't even remember when the alleged assault supposedly happened.

She told a therapist years ago, and the therapist produced the notes to prove it. She also voluntarily took a lie detector test and passed.

She never shared the name of the person who allegedly attacked her, there is a discrepancy in the number of people in the room between therapist's notes and her claims, and polygraphs are pretty much junk science.

And the friend has even written about his drunken escapades from high school, lending even more credence to her account.

How so? Getting drunk != having a friend who assaulted a girl at a party.

Kavanaugh did it,

You have no way of knowing that. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Pretty much impossible to ascertain the veracity of her claims, especially since her recollection is spotty - i.e. she doesn't remember when or where the alleged attack occurred. If she can't remember the where and when, why are you so certain she remembers the who perfectly?

and now he's lying again. Not that it will matter. He should be bounced for all the lying, at the least.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Kavanaugh. But if he goes down because of this politics of personal destruction, that would merely encourage more of the same, which would be a shame. Who would want to toss their hat in the ring if you have to endure allegations such as these?

 

[Derec]

She would have said something in 2006 most likely if he was a target.

If he is guilty why didn't she say anything then?

This whole thing stinks. Specifically the "attacked in a room while party was going on downstairs" scenario reeks heavily of the UVA false rape allegation made by Jackie Coakley. Down to inability to recall salient details like where the alleged attack occurred.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He did. So did his friend Mark Judge. So it's "he said, he said, she said" at this point.

- - - Updated - - -


Why do you think it's credible? There is no corroborating evidence and she can't even remember when the alleged assault supposedly happened.

Actually Kavanaugh denied the anonymous victim, not this named person. The friend used the ‘no recollection’ response which is lawyer speak. I can say quite truly, I never tried to sexually assault anyone in high school. I wouldn’t need to hedge that statement.

The credibility part comes from the fact she raised this to a psychologist 6 years ago.

But can you say definitively you were not a conservative prep school boy trying to hump your conservative prep school friend's butt while he tried to rape a girl at a party?

Well who can say that "definitively".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

She would have said something in 2006 most likely if he was a target.

If he is guilty why didn't she say anything then?

You are contradicting yourself: she's guilty of lying because she has come out and said something when he is nominated but if she said something when he was nominated before for a lesser job, then she'd have been innocent of lying. No, sorry, she didn't say anything back then maybe because he wasn't well known or maybe because she couldn't deal with it thru therapy but then she did in 2012 deal with it and get it documented which is completely independent of anything else in either of your conspiracies about her. Then, in 2018, the 2012 documented claim was put forward. That pretty much kicks your conspiracy out the window. Now that your conspiracy is put to bed with nails hammered into the coffin, what else you got? Are you next going to claim she's crazy?

 

[Derec]

You are contradicting yourself: she's guilty of lying

I am not.
1. I am not saying she is lying. But it would be virtually impossible to determine whether she is telling the truth or not.
2. I am also saying that she may have some partisan political reason to bring a SCOTUS nominee down. Appeals court judge was apparently not a big enough job to warrant the accusation being made then.
3. There is still the issue of her not remembering where and when the alleged assault took place. And yet she is certain about who and how. Really?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Christine Blasey Ford:
https://padailypost.com/2018/09/16/...ssor-accusing-kavanaugh-of-sexual-misconduct/

She went to an all-girls school 7 miles away from his prep school. You know how these things work... These schools are typically paired in some way and have dances together and so forth. Relationships develop, people throw parties when parents are away or if really rich, at a hotel when underaged.

Her story is very plausible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jke_kb1vBF8

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are contradicting yourself: she's guilty of lying

I am not.
1. I am not saying she is lying. But it would be virtually impossible to determine whether she is telling the truth or not.

She willingly subjected herself to a polygraph. Whether one believes in that stuff or not, let's see Kavanaugh do the same.

2. I am also saying that she may have some partisan political reason to bring a SCOTUS nominee down. Appeals court judge was apparently not a big enough job to warrant the accusation being made then.

You mean in 2012. That is an incoherent point.

3. There is still the issue of her not remembering where and when the alleged assault took place. And yet she is certain about who and how. Really?

Sure, if you are a rich kid attending these social parties often, being driven there with older teens and the house is full, you might not remember one house from the other. The specific people trying to rape you on the other hand...

 

[Derec]

She willingly subjected herself to a polygraph. Whether one believes in that stuff or not, let's see Kavanaugh do the same.

Polygraphs are not very reliable lie detectors. A psychologist would know that.

You mean in 2012. That is an incoherent point.

It's not.

Sure, if you are a rich kid attending these social parties often, being driven there with older teens and the house is full, you might not remember one house from the other. The specific people trying to rape you on the other hand...

Sure. Just like Jackie Coakley could not remember which frat house she was raped in ...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She would have said something in 2006 most likely if he was a target.

If he is guilty why didn't she say anything then?

You are contradicting yourself: she's guilty of lying because she has come out and said something when he is nominated but if she said something when he was nominated before for a lesser job, then she'd have been innocent of lying. No, sorry, she didn't say anything back then maybe because he wasn't well known or maybe because she couldn't deal with it thru therapy but then she did in 2012 deal with it and get it documented which is completely independent of anything else in either of your conspiracies about her. Then, in 2018, the 2012 documented claim was put forward. That pretty much kicks your conspiracy out the window. Now that your conspiracy is put to bed with nails hammered into the coffin, what else you got? Are you next going to claim she's crazy?

Well, he still has the "lyin' bitch card" in his arsenal.

 

[Derec]

Well, he still has the "lyin' bitch card" in his arsenal.

I am not saying she is a lying bitch. We simply do not know.
Therefore you can't claim she is telling the truth either, and if it can't be determined one way or another, it should not derail one's nomination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The truth is the GOP reaction with that letter response with 65 must have been hard to find women signing onto it gave this anonymous claim Usain Bolt legs. In fact, that is still what gives me the biggest impression the claim is true.

Now that the woman has come forth and presented evidence that she claimed this happened to a doctor six years ago... and the alleged co-conspirator gave a lawyer speak denial, not an actual denial...

...leads me to the conclusion that this isn’t some crazy woman, some political operative. And there is a lot more circumstantial evidence in favor of her accusation being true than against it being true.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, they need to get him, her and the witness in front of the Senate answering questions under oath - open Senate that is, not some closed door hearing. Regardless of what one thinks about how this information came out or how credible it sounds at the moment, they can't ram his vote through with these questions unresolved.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are contradicting yourself: she's guilty of lying because she has come out and said something when he is nominated but if she said something when he was nominated before for a lesser job, then she'd have been innocent of lying. No, sorry, she didn't say anything back then maybe because he wasn't well known or maybe because she couldn't deal with it thru therapy but then she did in 2012 deal with it and get it documented which is completely independent of anything else in either of your conspiracies about her. Then, in 2018, the 2012 documented claim was put forward. That pretty much kicks your conspiracy out the window. Now that your conspiracy is put to bed with nails hammered into the coffin, what else you got? Are you next going to claim she's crazy?

Well, he still has the "lyin' bitch card" in his arsenal.

Yup, that's pretty much the psychologists know how to beat polygraphs card.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, they need to get him, her and the witness in front of the Senate answering questions under oath - open Senate that is, not some closed door hearing. Regardless of what one thinks about how this information came out or how credible it sounds at the moment, they can't ram his vote through with these questions unresolved.

They can’t? I’m surprised they didn’t vote last night.

What is very bothersome is the GOP learned of this at some point and decided it didn’t matter to them.

 

[southernhybrid]

Flake and Corker said that the vote should be held back until the Ford can be questioned. She said, just this morning, that she is willing to go to Washington to be questioned. I have absolutely no doubt that she is being truthful, as no woman would make up this story, due to the consequences of coming forward. She will be harassed, criticized and threatened because of this. That is the most likely explanation as to why it took her so long to come forward with this information. If this horrible man, and he's horrible for a lot of reasons, is put on SCOTUS, we will have two men who have sexually assaulted women on the court. That really sucks!

I can't imagine how either of the two female Republican senators can vote for him, not only because of this but because of his obvious objections to Roe v. Wade. He was chosen because of his views on presidential power. At least that appears to be the case. Our democracy is on life support.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, they need to get him, her and the witness in front of the Senate answering questions under oath - open Senate that is, not some closed door hearing. Regardless of what one thinks about how this information came out or how credible it sounds at the moment, they can't ram his vote through with these questions unresolved.

They can’t? I’m surprised they didn’t vote last night.

What is very bothersome is the GOP learned of this at some point and decided it didn’t matter to them.

Fair point. What I meant to say is that they shouldn't. While it would be a nice boost in the midterms to have the Pussy Grabber install Rapey McPedophile to the Supreme Court as something for the Dems to run on, they'll probably chicken out and not mention it anyways and then the guy will be on the Supreme Court, so it's not like it would make a difference.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I think the ice under Kavanaugh is experiencing “climate change”:

“This woman should not be insulted and should not be ignored,” White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said during an interview on Fox News.

Setting up to drop the hot potato?