The two other students at the party (besides Kavanaugh, Judge, and Ford) are named but you bet they ain't invited to the hearing.

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Seems to me the reason why the GOP want to limit it to Kavanaugh and Ford is so Brett's wingman, Mark Judge, won't speak. His published accounts of prep school drunkenness includes the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh". If Judge testifies, it will become a full 3 ring circus with the finale being the public flogging of Brett Kavanaugh.

---

Okay, that would be more evidentiary and I get your point here. It would add up and paint a poor image of him.
Ironic thing is, acting like a jackass is less of a crime than what the palo alto doctor accuses.
That would be funny.

Sounds like the GOP is going to hustle is thru, and flake et al will likely vote accordingly.

Even if Kavanaugh gets the boot, I don't see how Dems can stall a new appointee for 2'years.

McConnell is a real honest to goodness assss.

---

How did republicans stall Merrick Garland for a year?

---

It was EASY - just don't allow a vote. They controlled the Senate, and, for years, have had more party discipline than Stalin - which is a big reason why they hated McCain's defection on the health care bill (especially since McCain was such a reliably brainless vote on all the usual Republican votes destructive of our society, such as the tax bill, and about anything else you can think of)

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.

---

Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.

---

Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.

---

Yet the victim here identified Kavanaugh and Judge as drunk when they assaulted her. This is not guilt by association, BOTH were in the room.

The fact Judge wrote a about his addiction and behavior doesn't discount the assault. Frankly it's Brett's dumb luck to have an idiot friend haunt him years later. As they use to say often in Catholic school, that behavior will catch up with you sooner or later. For poor Brett it was later but still brought on by his own decisions.

Yup, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I've heard a priest say that in the 80s. Applies to future supreme court nominees.

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.

---

Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.

---

Yet the victim here identified Kavanaugh and Judge as drunk when they assaulted her. This is not guilt by association, BOTH were in the room.

The fact Judge wrote a about his addiction and behavior doesn't discount the assault. Frankly it's Brett's dumb luck to have an idiot friend haunt him years later. As they use to say often in Catholic school, that behavior will catch up with you sooner or later. For poor Brett it was later but still brought on by his own decisions.

Yup, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I've heard a priest say that in the 80s. Applies to future supreme court nominees.

---

You said chances are your getting fuucked up regularly. You didn't say any of the BS that is in your next post. But its so nice to tar Catholic students with Priest's . Real piece of work.

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

That really puts GOP senators in between a rock and a hard place. When the senate does refuse to do an fbi investigation (and they will) that's not going to help them once the midterms rolls around. bad that isn't the law. The Senate can undertake its own investigation, but it can't ask the FBI.

---

Gee, what a great theory. Nor legally permissible, but why let facts get in the way. The Senate can do it's own investigation. I think that is what the Dems really want to hold things-up until past mid-terms, but they want the GOP to first say a FBI investigation can't be ordered by the Senate, and then respond. The President can order a FBI investigation - like that is going to happen.

WASHINGTON (AP) The Latest on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (all times local):
8:15 p.m.
The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.
The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."
The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.

---

Sorry I should have been more clear. If the senate really wanted to they could get the president to get an fbi investigation. All they would have to say is, look we ain't confirming this guy until you order an investigation.

Obviously that won't happen. Which allows the dems to paint the Republicans as not wanting to fully investigate a woman's credible claims.

---

I have no idea what happens on Monday. 4 WAGs:

1) Kav is voted in, after no hearing
2) Grassly and Feinstein meet to hammer out a compromise for a hearing (the concept of only 2 witnesses is a denial of even the appearance of due process), but there is not a chance in hell that Justice is going to allow itself to get dragged into this.
3) There is hearing at which the Senators shout at each other, and Kav is then voted in.
4) Kav takes his ball and goes home, and the next nominee is Trump's sister.

---

I mostly agree with yout possible scenarios.

To be clear, the fbi does have the jurisdiction to investigate this since they investigated Anita hill's claims. Obviously whether the fbi is eventually ordered to do so is another question.

But This is why the gop is in a tight spot.

I don't think there's any way they want the fbi to get involved cause they don't want witnesses to have to be interviewed by the fbi (under penalty of perjury). And who knows what the fbi will dig up when looking into kavanugh's high school days. I mean, mark judge wrote a book titled "wasted" for God's sakes.

But I also think it'll be very difficult for the gop senate to ram this confirmation thru without hearing from the accuser. They will definitely take a hit with the women's vote in the midterms.

Making matter more difficult is mark judge's refusal to testify under oath. That fact gives the dems even more leverage as they can say a key witness is refusing to testify under oath so an fbi investigation is necessary.

Honestly I have no idea what the gop senate is going to do. Any decision will be a bad one.

Which is why this was so genius by the accuser. Plus it allows her to only testify under her terms so she can avoid another Anita hill situation.

---

To be clear, the FBI does not have jurisdiction and the reference to Hill is wrong. Hill's case involved an allegation of federal discrimination law by a federal employee against another federal employee, in the course of employment at a federal agency. Moreover, it was an accusation of a crime that could be prosecuted. The FBI found insufficient evidence to prosecute and that Hill's allegations could be substantiated.

This matter involves an allegation of attempted rape, which if the accuser actually knew the city where it happened, arguably would be investigated by the locals. However, police only investigate active crimes and even Ford's own attorney's admits the statue of limitations has tolled. The redress under law in this case is a civil action, assuming the action would not be barred by statue or equitable defense. In a civil action there is discovery and private investigators. You don't get a free ride from the police.

The only way this gets investigated by the FBI is by Presidential order, and that is not happening (and the Department of Justice has publicly recommended against its involvement).

The attorney for Judge said he would not testify because of demands by Ford's attorney and certain Democratic Senators. She is obviously doing the right thing for her client. That said, the Committee could subpoena Judge, though that is not going to happen, since Ford would fight the subpoena, and that could take months.

From a justice standpoint the best thing to do is for a hearing with all relevant witnesses and no restrictions on what is said. That seems unlikely given the political posturing.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.

---

Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.

---

Yet the victim here identified Kavanaugh and Judge as drunk when they assaulted her. This is not guilt by association, BOTH were in the room.

The fact Judge wrote a about his addiction and behavior doesn't discount the assault. Frankly it's Brett's dumb luck to have an idiot friend haunt him years later. As they use to say often in Catholic school, that behavior will catch up with you sooner or later. For poor Brett it was later but still brought on by his own decisions.

Yup, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I've heard a priest say that in the 80s. Applies to future supreme court nominees.

---

You said chances are your getting fuucked up regularly. You didn't say any of the BS that is in your next post. But its so nice to tar Catholic students with Priest's . Real piece of work.

---

Huh? What are you talking about? This is about Kavanaugh and his buddy getting fall down drunk and assauting girls.

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.

---

Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.

---

WIAF, please calm down. I'm not trying to modern day lynch Kav. I don't want Kav to have his nomination tanked without him and Ford being able to speak on their behalves under oath in a process that is legitimately aimed at finding the truth. If such an opportunity is not given to Ford (most likely), then we are left to speculate (or have polls) on whether or not Ford is lying based on what we know from our own experience, research studies, and what we know about both parties.

Category: drawing on my personal experiences.
Senator Kennedy had asked Kav if he was a "John Boy Walton" type in high school or if he ran with "Ferris Bueller" types that drank beer. Kav didn't answer (perhaps it's true that what happens at Georgetown prep stays at Georgetown prep). I would guess that based on quotes Kav has made, he was not an outlier in a culture of heavy drinking. More likely, he fit right in -- which is not to say he had a tendency to get blackout drunk like Mark Judge, but that he was probably more a "Ferris Bueller" than a "John Boy Walton" in terms of drinking. There are many straight-laced kids I knew in high school where the simple description of their being "stumbling drunk" would have been deemed by me as extremely unlikely (must have been someone else). I don't believe, based on how Kav has spoken about his high school days (including a playful barfing reference in his yearbook page) and who his bff was, that it is extremely improbable that he could have ever been stumbling drunk. Quite the opposite.

TLDNR: I find it highly likely that Kav got stumbling drunk, on occasion, in high school.

Let's see what Ms. Ford has to say. And what Judge Kavanaugh has to say. And do it Monday.

Ms. Ford called for an FBI investigation once her name was public. Seriously? Sen Feinstein, as her confidante and political shepherd, has had many weeks, and even a few months to suggest this, but sat silent, with the approval of Ms. Ford. Feinstein in my view has been a good senator for a long time. But this is nothing for her to be proud of. She could have acted, but sat mute. What did Feinstein think was going to happen? The protesters were going to derail the nomination when people got up shouting? She should have met again with Ms. Ford weeks ago and said I am bringing it up now, or never.

Irrespective of how the vote goes, if the public finds it wrong and unfair, the Republicans will pay at the polls. And if Kavanaugh is confirmed, half the politicians will be alarmed, 93% of this board will be, and about 25% of the public.

As for this confirmation process, when you accuse, then really do it, and back up what you claim. Not through innuendo and in the shadows. If you are just playing a political game, as Feinstein evidently is, do not start.

Not vetted yet but this worths monitoring. Be aware though: when many women came forward to accuse Roy Moore, one conservative activist tried to frame the media with her fake Roy Moore story.

This is a good breakdown of the letter and timing. First and foremost, Prof. Ford requested, confidentiality and per the custom with this sort of stuff and law enforcement - that is respected. This is largely to blame why there was a delay. DiFi didn't feel it was her right or her call to release the letter because then Ford would be exposed and she didn't want that.

Republicans Say The Timing Of The Kavanaugh Letter Is "Disturbing." But Here's What Actually Happened.

Quote:

---

Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, obtained a letter over the summer dated July 30 that outlined allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh. She kept it secret, later explaining that she was following the wishes of the author, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who did not want to come forward.

Ford's lawyer agrees with that version of events. But the timing has raised questions and this hasn't stopped Republicans and observers in the media from alleging a coverup.

Top Republicans have spent this week accusing Feinstein of holding back the letter for political purposes. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called Feinstein's conduct "disturbing" Tuesday. Senate Republican
Conference Chairman John Thune said there was "never a whiff of this letter until just this last week." Whip John Cornyn said he was "skeptical about rewarding this bad behavior" with a new hearing to look at the allegations.
Republicans have repeatedly made the argument that if these allegations are so serious, why did Democrats not bring them up earlier?

This has drawn exasperated responses from Democrats, even those on the Judiciary Committee who were also kept in the dark about the letter. They say that it is a foundational principle to honor the wishes of sexual assault survivors. This wasn't about politics, they argue, but letting the woman choose how and when to tell her story. "It's hard to push back against complete nonsense like that, it's hard to even find a foothold in fact to push back against," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.


When asked, Republican senators have struggled to say exactly what Feinstein should have done differently. They won't say she should have disregarded the wishes of the woman. But when pressed they have come down to the same point, the supposed smoking gun that reveals Feinstein's manipulation the timing of the letter becoming public.

---

Here's the woman (brave, mind you) that vouches that this incident was talked about around the time it is alleged to have happened. Seems a little less likely now that it was some loony idea that entered Ford's head only after an intense marriage therapy session.

Her LinkedIn. She is a real person.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Here's the woman (brave, mind you) that vouches that this incident was talked about around the time it is alleged to have happened. Seems a little less likely now that it was some loony idea that entered Ford's head only after an intense marriage therapy session.

Her LinkedIn. She is a real person.

---

I don't know whom to believe, but this Miranda's retracted story does not help Ford a bit. She laid out a detailed story beyond what Ford or anyone else purportedly in the room ever recalled. And then promptly retracted it because she admittedly had no personal knowledge. Don't we call that "lying"? And if her story were indeed credible, then it would call into question Ford's own account and memory -- the only basis of her accusation. Recall that Ford stated that she told no one for 30 years about what supposedly happened to her.

Feinstein's mishandling of this letter already reeks of ambush and delaying tactics. If Ford decided not to show up Monday to speak about her serious accusations, then even the most Trump-hating GOPs would have no choice but to dismiss this story as partisan tactics and move forward with the confirmation.

It is all sh*t show.

Calcupcakes said:

---

I don't know whom to believe, but this Miranda's retracted story does not help Ford a bit. She laid out a detailed story beyond what Ford or anyone else purportedly in the room ever recalled. And then promptly retracting it because she admittedly had no personal knowledge. Don't we call that "lying"? And if her story were indeed credible, then it would call into question Ford's own account and memory -- the only basis of her accusation. Recall that Ford stated that she told no one for 30 years about what supposedly happened to her.

Feinstein's mishandling of this letter already reeks of ambush and delaying tactics. If Ford decided not to show up Monday to speak about her serious accusations, then even the most Trump-hating GOPs would have no choice but to dismiss this story as partisan tactics and move forward with the confirmation.

It is all sh*t show.

---

Let's just clarify that deleting a social media post that is already being widely circulated and she understands is already part of the permanent record as a screen capture does not equal a retraction.

Mark Judge was also alleged to have been in the room. Maybe he had loose lips in high school when he was drunk. Happens.

[Deleted or retracted]

Calcupcakes said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Here's the woman (brave, mind you) that vouches that this incident was talked about around the time it is alleged to have happened. Seems a little less likely now that it was some loony idea that entered Ford's head only after an intense marriage therapy session.

Her LinkedIn. She is a real person.

---

I don't know whom to believe, but this Miranda's retracted story does not help Ford a bit. She laid out a detailed story beyond what Ford or anyone else purportedly in the room ever recalled. And then promptly retracted it because she admittedly had no personal knowledge. Don't we call that "lying"? .

---

Not lying. But yes, it is hearsay.

I agree, this woman is doing Ford no favors

All I want at this point is for mark judge to go under oath.
Whether by subpoena or fbi investigation, whatever.

Isn't that reasonable?

Bullet point #2 of the Wing Nut Playbook about to be deployed: blame the victim, then play the victim. Here's the outline to the playbook:

A) Change the subject, distract, move the goal posts
B) Blame the victim, play the victim
C) Lie, make shtt up
D) When in doubt, attack, attack ATTACK
E) Rinse, repeat

The GOP are going to deploy the classic blame the victim deal while portraiting Kavanaugh as the victim here.

The problem here is I don't think Prof. Ford plays along. She already said she wants a FBI investigation, as a way to establish facts. The other problem is there was another guy in the room...and his writing credits collaborate things like being fall down drunk.

I still think the GOP blow chunks on this. #MeToo says so as do the optics of (how many GOP men?) questioning a women.

Another Bear said:

---

Bullet point #2 of the Wing Nut Playbook about to be deployed: blame the victim, then play the victim. Here's the outline to the playbook:

A) Change the subject, distract, move the goal posts
B) Blame the victim, play the victim
C) Lie, make shtt up
D) When in doubt, attack, attack ATTACK
E) Rinse, repeat

The GOP are going to deploy the classic blame the victim deal while portraiting Kavanaugh as the victim here.

The problem here is I don't think Prof. Ford plays along. She already said she wants a FBI investigation, as a way to establish facts. The other problem is there was another guy in the room...and his writing credits collaborate things like being fall down drunk.

I still think the GOP blow chunks on this. #MeToo says so as do the optics of (how many GOP men?) questioning a women.

---

A quick quiz: of the 11 GOP members in the Senate Judiciary Committee, how many are female?

BearChemist said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Bullet point #2 of the Wing Nut Playbook about to be deployed: blame the victim, then play the victim. Here's the outline to the playbook:

A) Change the subject, distract, move the goal posts
B) Blame the victim, play the victim
C) Lie, make shtt up
D) When in doubt, attack, attack ATTACK
E) Rinse, repeat

The GOP are going to deploy the classic blame the victim deal while portraiting Kavanaugh as the victim here.

The problem here is I don't think Prof. Ford plays along. She already said she wants a FBI investigation, as a way to establish facts. The other problem is there was another guy in the room...and his writing credits collaborate things like being fall down drunk.

I still think the GOP blow chunks on this. #MeToo says so as do the optics of (how many GOP men?) questioning a women.

---

A quick quiz: of the 11 GOP members in the Senate Judiciary Committee, how many are female?

---

zero.

BearChemist said:

---

A quick quiz: of the 11 GOP members in the Senate Judiciary Committee, how many are female?

---

I believe that answer is ZERO.

p.s. NYT asked a question for reader responses regarding Kavanaugh and Ford: "Who has more to gain by lying?

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.

---

Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.

---

Yet the victim here identified Kavanaugh and Judge as drunk when they assaulted her. This is not guilt by association, BOTH were in the room.

The fact Judge wrote a about his addiction and behavior doesn't discount the assault. Frankly it's Brett's dumb luck to have an idiot friend haunt him years later. As they use to say often in Catholic school, that behavior will catch up with you sooner or later. For poor Brett it was later but still brought on by his own decisions.

Yup, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I've heard a priest say that in the 80s. Applies to future supreme court nominees.

---

You said chances are your getting fuucked up regularly. You didn't say any of the BS that is in your next post. But its so nice to tar Catholic students with Priest's . Real piece of work.

---

Huh? What are you talking about? This is about Kavanaugh and his buddy getting fall down drunk and assauting girls.

---

Huh yourself. Kav and his buddies are now attacking multiple girls?

The first post in this wonderful series has Kav being a fall down drunk based on 5 word line from his freaky high school year book referencing a guy who became a drunk. Didn't even relate it to the what happened.

Then comes the nice analogy to the '80's priests because he went to a Catholic school.

When then opponents start smearing Ford, your really not in a position to whine.

Another Bear said:

---

Bullet point #2 of the Wing Nut Playbook about to be deployed: blame the victim, then play the victim. Here's the outline to the playbook:

A) Change the subject, distract, move the goal posts
B) Blame the victim, play the victim
C) Lie, make shtt up
D) When in doubt, attack, attack ATTACK
E) Rinse, repeat

The GOP are going to deploy the classic blame the victim deal while portraiting Kavanaugh as the victim here.

The problem here is I don't think Prof. Ford plays along. She already said she wants a FBI investigation, as a way to establish facts. The other problem is there was another guy in the room...and his writing credits collaborate things like being fall down drunk.

I still think the GOP blow chunks on this. #MeToo says so as do the optics of (how many GOP men?) questioning a women.

---

After seeing some of the cr@p in this thread, your in no position to complain.

ducky23 said:

---

Calcupcakes said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Here's the woman (brave, mind you) that vouches that this incident was talked about around the time it is alleged to have happened. Seems a little less likely now that it was some loony idea that entered Ford's head only after an intense marriage therapy session.

Her LinkedIn. She is a real person.

---

I don't know whom to believe, but this Miranda's retracted story does not help Ford a bit. She laid out a detailed story beyond what Ford or anyone else purportedly in the room ever recalled. And then promptly retracted it because she admittedly had no personal knowledge. Don't we call that "lying"? .

---

Not lying. But yes, it is hearsay.

I agree, this woman is doing Ford no favors

All I want at this point is for mark judge to go under oath.
Whether by subpoena or fbi investigation, whatever.

Isn't that reasonable?

---

What is it that you don't understand that the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction? Judge's lawyer said he was willing to testify, but Ford's lawyer demaded to limit his testimony. Wonder what she doesn't want said?

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Calcupcakes said:

---

I don't know whom to believe, but this Miranda's retracted story does not help Ford a bit. She laid out a detailed story beyond what Ford or anyone else purportedly in the room ever recalled. And then promptly retracting it because she admittedly had no personal knowledge. Don't we call that "lying"? And if her story were indeed credible, then it would call into question Ford's own account and memory -- the only basis of her accusation. Recall that Ford stated that she told no one for 30 years about what supposedly happened to her.

Feinstein's mishandling of this letter already reeks of ambush and delaying tactics. If Ford decided not to show up Monday to speak about her serious accusations, then even the most Trump-hating GOPs would have no choice but to dismiss this story as partisan tactics and move forward with the confirmation.

It is all sh*t show.

---

Let's just clarify that deleting a social media post that is already being widely circulated and she understands is already part of the permanent record as a screen capture does not equal a retraction.

Mark Judge was also alleged to have been in the room. Maybe he had loose lips in high school when he was drunk. Happens.

---

No le se

Welp, there's this stuff. Seems Prof. Ford and her people did their research and made a reasonable request. But the GOP will stone-wall her.


The FBI did investigate Anita Hill's accusation, and it took 3 days

And there's this...

Opposition to Kavanaugh grows, support at historic low: Reuters/Ipsos poll

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Calcupcakes said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Here's the woman (brave, mind you) that vouches that this incident was talked about around the time it is alleged to have happened. Seems a little less likely now that it was some loony idea that entered Ford's head only after an intense marriage therapy session.

Her LinkedIn. She is a real person.

---

I don't know whom to believe, but this Miranda's retracted story does not help Ford a bit. She laid out a detailed story beyond what Ford or anyone else purportedly in the room ever recalled. And then promptly retracted it because she admittedly had no personal knowledge. Don't we call that "lying"? .

---

Not lying. But yes, it is hearsay.

I agree, this woman is doing Ford no favors

All I want at this point is for mark judge to go under oath.
Whether by subpoena or fbi investigation, whatever.

Isn't that reasonable?

---

What is it that you don't understand that the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction? Judge's lawyer said he was willing to testify, but Ford's lawyer demaded to limit his testimony. Wonder what she doesn't want said?

---

I don't think our definition of "jurisdiction" is the same.

Must the fbi investigate? Obviously not

Can they be ordered to investigate (presumably by the president)? Yes

If you look at my previous posts, I've always maintained that the fbi has to be ordered to do so. And I've also said it's unlikely they would be so ordered. But it doesn't mean that the fbi absolutely cannot do an investigation.

Also I may have missed it, but can you link where it says judge is willing to testify?

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

If you have an alcoholic friend, and you hang out with him often enough to carve out yearbook space for him, chances are you're getting pretty fuucked up on the regular as well. Otherwise, their shtick would be intolerable.

---

Looking back, most of us have a high school friend or two that ending-up with substance abuse problems, which we didn't have. This is utter guilt by association of the lowest level. Why not just say Ford had a friend who was a **** and therefore Ford asked for it. Exactly the same thing. Or say Obama, you hang with 60's radicals you end up like them. What utter bulls!t.

---

WIAF, please calm down. I'm not trying to modern day lynch Kav. I don't want Kav to have his nomination tanked without him and Ford being able to speak on their behalves under oath in a process that is legitimately aimed at finding the truth. If such an opportunity is not given to Ford (most likely), then we are left to speculate (or have polls) on whether or not Ford is lying based on what we know from our own experience, research studies, and what we know about both parties.

Category: drawing on my personal experiences.
Senator Kennedy had asked Kav if he was a "John Boy Walton" type in high school or if he ran with "Ferris Bueller" types that drank beer. Kav didn't answer (perhaps it's true that what happens at Georgetown prep stays at Georgetown prep). I would guess that based on quotes Kav has made, he was not an outlier in a culture of heavy drinking. More likely, he fit right in -- which is not to say he had a tendency to get blackout drunk like Mark Judge, but that he was probably more a "Ferris Bueller" than a "John Boy Walton" in terms of drinking. There are many straight-laced kids I knew in high school where the simple description of their being "stumbling drunk" would have been deemed by me as extremely unlikely (must have been someone else). I don't believe, based on how Kav has spoken about his high school days (including a playful barfing reference in his yearbook page) and who his bff was, that it is extremely improbable that he could have ever been stumbling drunk. Quite the opposite.

TLDNR: I find it highly likely that Kav got stumbling drunk, on occasion, in high school.

---

Sounds like thee "we" here have already made up their mind. I think a better approach is to leave out the juvenile character assassination of Kav. To quote DiFi yesterday: "I can't say everything [Ford] said is truthful, I don't know." Nor does anyone here. Which is why there should be hearing with all relevant witnesses and no limitations on what is said.

My response was to this, your previous post. Re-read and explain it again because it's incoherent and there's no context.

Quote:

---

You said chances are your getting fuucked up regularly. You didn't say any of the BS that is in your next post. But its so nice to tar Catholic students with Priest's . Real piece of work.

---

Any way, the hard party thing is real in Catholic school...because it's not a sin to drink, just to abuse and that's suspect. It's also a cultural thing where most Catholic countries not only drink, some are rather famous for it, and those traditions have carried over to the U.S.

wifeisafurd said:

---

What is it that you don't understand that the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction? Judge's lawyer said he was willing to testify, but Ford's lawyer demaded to limit his testimony. Wonder what she doesn't want said?

---

The FBI did investigate Anita Hill's accusation, and it took 3 days

Another Bear said:

---

My response was to this, your previous post. Re-read and explain it again because it's incoherent and there's no context.

Quote:

---

You said chances are your getting fuucked up regularly. You didn't say any of the BS that is in your next post. But its so nice to tar Catholic students with Priest's . Real piece of work.

---

Any way, the hard party thing is real in Catholic school...because it's not a sin to drink, just to abuse and that's suspect. It's also a cultural thing where most Catholic countries not only drink, some are rather famous for it, and those traditions have carried over to the U.S.

---

I disagree with that. Plenty of Catholic counties where those who would be underage can drink wine and you rarely see anyone drunk, at least who is a native. Start with Italy, France and Spain.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Catholic schools have more drug or alcohol use?

wifeisafurd said:

---

Sounds like thee "we" here have already made up their mind. I think a better approach is to leave out the juvenile character assassination of Kav. To quote DiFi yesterday: "I can't say everything [Ford] said is truthful, I don't know." Nor does anyone here. Which is why there should be hearing with all relevant witnesses and no limitations on what is said.

---

I can get on board with this. Chances the GOP will allow that to happen? I'd say 4%.

Another Bear said:

---

My response was to this, your previous post. Re-read and explain it again because it's incoherent and there's no context.

Quote:

---

You said chances are your getting fuucked up regularly. You didn't say any of the BS that is in your next post. But its so nice to tar Catholic students with Priest's . Real piece of work.

---

Any way, the hard party thing is real in Catholic school...because it's not a sin to drink, just to abuse and that's suspect. It's also a cultural thing where most Catholic countries not only drink, some are rather famous for it, and those traditions have carried over to the U.S.

---

The hard party thing is real at every school, I'm not sure why you are singling out Catholic Schools for this.