(Nov 3, 2018 02:56 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]You're missing the point. I never stated, in fact I explicitly stated that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh of a crime. This wasn't a criminal trial. The hearings between the two, were merely to determine credibility. That's it. I didn't find him to be as credible as she was, in her testimony. Who are you to tell me that's wrong? Not enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh, if this was a criminal case, but it's not a criminal case.
That's what you're missing. His former Yale classmates were on different news programs, discussing the details of Kavanaugh's drinking habits from college days. They were making it all up, on live news programs? lol Why?
Not to mention that the FBI ''investigation'' seemed rushed and didn't cross examine Ford nor Kavanaugh, and didn't interrogate others who were supposedly considered ''witnesses.''
Who said anything about a crime? I certainly didn't say anything about a crime or criminal trial. And I haven't disagreed once about it being an matter of credibility, but credibility goes beyond just whose manner you liked better during their testimony. Corroboration does speak to credibility. It is wrong to claim to be assessing credibility while being unaware of or flat out wrong about the corroborating facts. That's as naive as judging the credibility of a child saying they didn't break a lamp without taking into account the broken lamp and their sole proximity to it.
Now I understand that women do preference their own emotional "gut" reaction to things over pesky facts, and if you're claiming a woman's prerogative, I will both discount your opinion on the matter entirely and desist from pressing you any further. You're free to indulge in your own fantasies.
You apparently missed where I already addressed Kavanaugh's former classmates:
(Oct 30, 2018 04:19 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]On CNN on Friday night, Chris Cuomo interviewed Liz Swisher, one of Kavanaugh’s former classmates. “What do you know about Brett Kavanaugh that he was not truthful about in the hearing?” Cuomo asked her.
“I would’ve stayed on the sidelines if he’d said, ‘I drank to excess in high school. I drank to excess in college. I did some stupid things. But I never sexually assaulted anybody,’” Swisher told Cuomo. “But to lie under oath, to lie about that, then what else is true?”
But Swisher’s comment about what she believes Kavanaugh ought to have said in order to be truthful lines up almost exactly with what Kavanaugh did say during his testimony. “I drank beer with my friends,” he said in his opening statement. ”Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.”
That statement is nearly word for word what Swisher said her former classmate ought to have testified. And yet she appeared on CNN to offer this commentary and call him a liar.
Meanwhile, another of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates, Chad Ludington, issued a statement on Sunday claiming that Kavanaugh made a “blatant mischaracterization” of his drinking habits. His statement, however, failed to indicate exactly what Kavanaugh mischaracterized. Ludington offered no new evidence or information that contradicted what Kavanaugh himself has already admitted.
- https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ya...-drinking/
Kavanaugh clearly said he sometimes "had too many beers". So where's this boogeyman that he lied? O_o
Kavanaugh never testified that he never got belligerent or angry when drunk, so Ludington's claims don't show that he lied either.
The FBI investigation had NOTHING to do with anyone's credibility. If you think it did, then you're imagining some damning info we never heard in the news. And you can't have it both ways. Either your sense of credibility relied solely on their testimony or it didn't, in which case ALL the corroborating facts, and lack thereof, are pertinent. So you seem to be cherry-picking the facts that suit your foregone conclusion.
Quote:Not to mention Kavanaugh seemed pretty uncomfortable about a thorough FBI investigation taking place after the hearing. And a few of his former classmates stated that he was texting them, coaching them as to what to say about him.
I already explained the facts about him needing to be confirmed before the midterms, LEST IT NEVER HAPPEN AT ALL. Why don't you understand how he wouldn't want a drawn out investigation (which when he was asked is what everyone expected) that would almost certainly dash his hopes of reaching the pinnacle of his career? Had nothing to do with hiding anything, and there's no evidence he was "coaching" people. The same cannot be said for Ford's side. Asking people to "go on the record" is not coaching, but "twisting" their words or asking them to "clarify [their] statement" may be.
The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.
In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.”
...
On Monday, a senior U.S. official confirmed that the White House has authorized the FBI to expand its initially limited investigation by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long as the review is finished by the end of the week. The New York Times first reported the change in scope.
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...ce-n915566
If you think someone is orchestrating a hit piece on you, you'd be nuts to ignore it. It was Ramirez' trying to coach classmates.
A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh
...
Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said.
The statement to the FBI offers a glimpse into how Dr. Ford’s allies were working behind the scenes to lobby old classmates to bolster their versions of the alleged incident
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-d...1538715152
And Swetnick said that Avenatti "twisted my words".
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice...gh-n924596
Quote:That's evidence that seemed to be brushed aside. I realize that there were people who couldn't recall the party, couldn't recall meeting Kavanaugh, couldn't recall being at that party, etc. And I don't disbelieve them, but she stated that she was 100% positive that Kavanaugh was the guy who tried to assault her. With his buddy, Mark Judge, who seems like he's hiding something. I know, they both swore under oath...but so did Dr Ford.
Yes, you dismiss the lack of corroboration to maintain your foregone conclusion.
Quote:That's why you believe him, and I believe her. And why a nation is divided on the issue. I don't think you're stupid or ignorant for siding with Kavanaugh, it's not personal to me. I honestly don't care what you think, to be honest. Just stating why I found her testimony to be more credible than his.
Wait, why do you think I believe him? Because I'm a guy and male privilege or something?
Again, if your opinion is just your "gut" feeling, it means nothing at all. I really don't know why you're arguing it if you "honestly don't care".,
Actions belie your words.