rumitoid

Brett Kavanaugh has provided an emotional and full-throated defence against sexual assault allegations during an unprecedented interview with Fox News.

The Supreme Court nominee and his wife Ashley Kavanaugh sat down to discuss accusations brought against him by Dr Christine Blasey Ford, who alleged he pinned her down and made unwanted sexual advances towards her at a party in high school, and another report of sexual misconduct during his college years. A third allegation arrived shortly after the interview was released from an unnamed woman represented by Michael Avenatti.

The interview featured an adamant and visibly hurt Mr Kavanaugh, who vowed he wasn't "going anywhere" and would proceed with the nomination process. However, he appeared to contradict numerous reports and statements from associates throughout his life which cast a damaging picture of the US district judge. Commentators said it was highly unusual, if not entirely unprecedented, for a nominee to appear in a television interview before his confirmation.

Below are some of the most contradictory elements to Mr Kavanaugh's Fox News interview:
1. Brett Kavanaugh said the supposed college incident "would have been the talk of the campus". It was.

The judge appeared to refute sexual assault claims brought against him by Deborah Ramirez, who said Mr Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her at a dormitory party at Yale and made her touch his penis without her consent, by suggesting nobody on campus ever heard of or spoke about the alleged incident.

However, numerous Yale alumni have said they recall hearing about the event in question involving both Ms Ramirez and Mr Kavanaugh shortly after it supposedly happened. One unnamed classmate said they were “one hundred per cent sure” they were told at the time about the judge’s unwanted advances onto Ms Ramirez. "I’ve known this all along,” he told the New Yorker. “It’s been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal."

Not only have several former students said the alleged incident was discussed on campus at the time, but others have also said it was brought back up amongst alumni immediately after Donald Trump nominated Mr Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

2. The judge said the people he knew in college found the claims "inconceivable". They don't.

The judge kept referring to the numerous folks who have vouched for him throughout his life, including college friends who spoke out shortly after the second round of sex assault allegations were brought against him.

But his college roommate James Roche told the New Yorker the judge was "frequently, incoherently drunk" while adding: "Is it believable that she was alone with a wolf group of guys who thought it was funny to sexually torment a girl like Debbie? Yeah, definitely. Is it believable that Kavanaugh was one of them? Yes."

Even two of the judge’s friends who signed a statement of support provided by his lawyers did not appear wholeheartedly convinced of his innocence. In separate statements to the New Yorker, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing both said “I cannot dispute Ramirez’s allegations, as I was not present” and “I also was not present and therefore am not in a position to directly dispute Ramirez’s account”.

3. Mr Kavanaugh said he was "focused on academics and athletics" in high school. He called himself the treasurer of the "Keg City Club" in his yearbook.

Mr Kavanaugh painted himself as a devout Catholic teenager with a passion for academia and sports, who was a virgin until “many years” after high school.

“The vast majority of the time I spent in high school was studying or focused on sports and being a good friend to the boys and the girls that I was friends with,” he told Fox News.

However, in his own yearbook page, the judge described himself as the treasurer of the “Keg City Club,” an apparent reference to his group of friends who reportedly enjoyed drinking and throwing parties while attending Georgetown Preparatory high school.

His former classmate and friend Mark Judge also wrote a book which included a character named Bart O’Kavanaugh, who was a heavy drinker. The New York Times also published a story highlighting a reference in his yearbook page to “Renate Alumnus,” which appears in some form numerous times throughout the yearbook and appears to be a mocking joke against Renate Schroeder, a former student from a nearby girls’ school.

His page also includes references to things like "100 kegs or bust" — which of course appear to reference drinking, not religious studies, academia or athletics.

4. He repeatedly called for "a fair process", but did not support relaunching an FBI investigation, which would provide fairness to both sides.

Though Mr Kavanaugh was provided the opportunity to expressly support a renewed FBI investigation into the claims against him, the judge simply asserted he wanted “a fair process”, repeating the phrase on multiple occasions throughout the interview.

“All I am asking for is a fair process where I can be heard,” he said. “I am looking for a fair process, a process where I can defend my integrity and clear my name.”
“Again, just asking for a fair process where I can be heard and I did defend my integrity,” he continued.

While “fair” could be interpreted in many ways in this event dependent on political ideologies, one would assume a neutral judge considers a “fair” case one that is properly investigated on both sides.

5. The judge said the New York Times "could not corroborate" the New Yorker story. That's simply not true.

Mr Kavanaugh alleged the New York Times was not able to substantiate the claims made against him, though the paper has said no such thing.
In fact, the Times’ editor Dean Baquet celebrated journalist Ronan Farrow’s reporting in the New Yorker.

"I gather some people thought we were trying to knock down [Ramirez’s] account, but that’s not what we were doing," he said on Monday. "I’m not questioning their story. We’ve been competing against Ronan Farrow for a year and he’s terrific."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-five-major-contradictions-171248889.html

Liberty Tree

Have you counted all the contradictions in Ford's account?

rumitoid

Have you? If there were any, why not post them?

Liberty Tree

Everyone she mentioned as a witness has contradicted her. She has contradicted herself on who was present. She is confused on dates, places, and times. Just to name a few.

peg w

Remember prof Hills testimony before congress? Actually, the judicary committee knew of other women who were harrased by Thomas. Oprah did a program years later on it. I am wondering if more women are in the bushes and will they get their chance to tell their stories?
.

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

If there was even a remote chance that taking the time to do so would make a difference to you and your ilk, maybe it would be worth the effort, but your team just moves the goalpost, so no thanks. Can't wait for someone with no class to pull this same stunt on one of your leading Dems. Oh wait, there's a number of actual cases with corroboration and proof, but we've all seen how the media and everyone on your side handles them:

Daniel Inouye
Barney Frank
Brock Adams
Fred Richmond
John Young
Mel Reynolds
Cory Booker
Keith Ellison
Bill Clinton
(so many more)

Gotta hand it to you folks. When it comes to sleaze we simple cannot compete!

rumitoid

Please show a source supporting that accusation.

rumitoid

Show that!

Liberty Tree

Obviously you have read nothing but ELWNJ blogs or you would know. It has been well documented.

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

Hey rumitoid! I can't speak for Liberty Tree, but I've come to a decision as a free-thinking conservative deplorable. If I feel like digging through the back pages of an internet search that has slanted nearly everything your way for some time now in order to locate legitimate sources to support my argument - I'll do that. And if I don't, I won't. You guys may think you're in the majority, but I don't think so. And you don't get to pull the strings.

JoyV

According to Ramirez' statement, she passed out at a drinking party. She came to with what she believed was a f**e penis in her face. It took several times of others telling her it wasn't f**e and to kiss it if she didn't believe it, before she no longer thought it was f**e. Yet despite not being coherent enough to see that a penis wasn't a plastic hand held f**e instead of real and attached to a man's body, we should believe she clearly saw and recognized the man she couldn't tell it was attached to.

These people, who each say they believe the accusations, all claim to have been his college roommate. Lynne Brookes, Ms Swisher, and James Roche. Now Kananaugh was in Delta Kappa Epsilon and could NOT have had women roommates. The only James Roche I can find as a member of Yale's Delta Kappa Epsilon, is James Jeffrey Roche who became a member in 1904.

Can you show any evidence from the time that the alleged incidents were the "talk of the campus"?

I note the images of the yearbook do not show anything identifying whose page it is. Some of the entries read like they are from a girl such as the entry, "those prep guys are the BIGGEST" Since Kananaugh WAS a prep guy, why would he write, "those prep guys..." This is not the only entry which sounds like the kinds of things high school girls say about boys. Unless the next claim is that Kavanaugh is a closet gay, these entries are weird for a man to write.

Maybe he didn't call for "relaunching" an FBI investigation into the alleged incidences because he knows a bit about the law. The FBI not only has no jurisdiction in either of these allegations, whoever does have jurisdiction needs to have the what, where, when and who to open an investigation.

And if the NYT can corroborate the New Yorker story, why didn't they? All the stories in various news outlets come from the New Yorker story. They are NOT independent stories.

JoyV

rumitoid

Please prove that.

rumitoid

Lying Trump says such things all the time. Document it! Simple.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Will the day ever come when you document any of the crap you post?



Eight big problems for Christine Blasey Ford’s story

By Paul Sperry

September 25, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are serious. She is accusing him of violent attempted rape. “I thought he might inadvertently k**l me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing,” she told The Washington Post, recounting the alleged incident at a high school party “one summer in the early 1980s.”

But her story is also growing less believable by the day. Here are eight reasons why it’s hardly “anti-woman” for senators to question her account at Thursday’s hearing:

1) For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.

Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.)

2) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story.

3) Worse, the four other people she identified as attending the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including Leland Ingham Keyser, who she calls a “lifelong friend.”

Keyser’s lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.”

The other two potential witnesses — Mark Judge and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth — also deny any recollection of attending such a party. The committee took their sworn statements “under penalty of perjury.” “These witnesses directly contradict Professor Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley advised Ford’s attorneys last week.

In her original letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that Kavanaugh talked to Keyser and Smyth right after he assaulted her. Yet neither shares her memory.

This is, to say the least, highly problematic for her case. No witness corroborates any part of her story.

4) Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.

The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. “Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?” a congressional source familiar with the investigation wondered.

5) This summer, Ford tried to reach out to old friends from high school and college to jog her memory. They couldn’t help her. “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” Ford complained to one friend in July, according to an account in The San Jose Mercury News.

6) Yet she still pushed forward with her bombshell charge, contacting The Washington Post tip line and Democratic lawmakers, while hiring a Democratic activist lawyer. Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.

7) Ford contends that notes her therapist took in 2012 corroborate her account. But they don’t mention Kavanaugh.

They also point up inconsistencies in her story. For instance, her shrink noted that Ford told her there were “four boys” in the bedroom, not two as she now says. The notes also indicate Ford said she was in her “late teens” when she was assaulted. But Ford now says she may have been only 15.

8) In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when T***p w*n in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.

On top of all that, Kavanaugh “unequivocally denied Dr. Ford’s allegations . . . under penalty of perjury” during a Sept. 17 interview with committee lawyers, Grassley said, adding he was “forthright and emphatic in his testimony” and “fully answered all questions.”

The sworn interview will no doubt be used to test the consistency and veracity of his public statements Thursday.

Yet Democrats have already tried and convicted Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Without hard evidence, without substantiation, some even go beyond Ford’s claims to call him an out-and-out “rapist,” “sexual predator,” even a “child predator.”

As a result, Kavanaugh and his family, “including his two young daughters, have faced serious death threats and vicious assaults,” Grassley said. “And they’re getting worse each day.”

Ford, who also has received threats, is by all accounts a respected scientific researcher in the field of psychology with an impressive pedigree. While that makes her credible, the same can’t be said for her story. Unless she can fill in the many holes, Kavanaugh still deserves the presumption of innocence.