"This entire situation is nothing more than a stall tactic by the left."
How is it a stall tactic? The GOP waited almost a year to fill Scalia's seat, but they won't wait 3 or 4 days to have this allegation investigated? There's a lot about Kavanaugh they've swept under the rug. It appears he lied several times to Congress in the past, and may still be lying now. His finances are sketchy, to say the least - who paid off his gambling debts, and how did he go from $10K in the bank one year yet afford a $250K down-payment on a #1 million+ house the next? We deserve to learn more than we've been told - what are they hiding, and why are they in such a rush?
The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, but the GOP seems bound and determined to prevent the accuser from gathering the evidence she needs. No FBI investigation, no additional witnesses, just he said/she said. The hearing will be a farce. McConnell said on Friday that they were going to push through this and put Kavanaugh on the bench - the fix is in.
"Never Trumper?
Check out her lawyer."
This is about her, not her lawyer. Hiring her does not prove anything, and especially doesn't prove that she shares the attorney's political beliefs.
"Came forward when some one leaked her name?
The only person that has seen the supposed letter is Feinstein,
Who could have leaked it besides her, and why hasn't she responded to Grassley's request for an UN-REDACTED copy of the letter?"
Your initial premise is incorrect. Dr. Ford approached her local congressperson months earlier with her story and provided her with the letter, requesting that incident be investigated as part of his background check. That Rep. brought the letter to Feinstein since she is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. The letter requested confidentiality, and Feinstein tried to honor that request. So that's at least 2 others who knew about the letter. The day after this became public knowledge, the GOP managed to miraculously gather 65 signatures OVERNIGHT on a letter professing Kavanaugh's good character. Things that make you go, "Hmmmm".
And how about this - a couple of hours after news about the allegations broke, but days BEFORE Dr. Ford was identified as the accuser, a GOP operative was examining Dr. Ford's Linked-In profile. We know this because Linked-in has a program where users can view who is checking them out, and Dr. Ford takes part in that program. This same operative later spread a rumor on Twitter that Ford had mistaken Kavanaugh for another student who looked like him (an idea promoted by Sen. Hatch a day earlier - again, "Hmmmm") and even named him. In essence, he threw this poor schlub who had NO INVOLVEMENT with this incident at all under the bus. The operative attempted to walk back this ham-handed effort to recast blame the next day, but that's like putting toothpaste back into the tube. It's my hope that the victim of this undeserved libel decides to sue, but the point of all this is that the GOP clearly knew in advance that Kavanaugh had a potential problem - they knew about the allegations, and they knew who was making them before her identity was made public. Unless you want to believe that the operative was just randomly checking a profile on Linked-In for a professor no one had ever heard of - except Kavanaugh. So tell me again where the leak came from.
"You can remember what you were doing on 9/11, moon landing and when JFK was shot, but she can't remember where or even the year when she was almost raped?"
Clearly, you know nothing about the subject. Traumatized victims often do not remember all the details of the incident that traumatized them. They may remember the general incident, but some of the details have been repressed. 9/11, the moon landing, and JFK's assassination may not have affected her personally, but this did, and the trauma is different. And if you want to question how I know this - I spent two years volunteering with victims of domestic violence and studied PTSD and its effect on victims as part of my paralegal certification. The people who are questioning her memories of the experience simply don't know what they're talking about.
"Get real, even Jose Feliciano can see through this scam."
Really? You're going to suggest that blind people are somehow generally incapable of determining the truth unless it's so obvious that they don't need to be able to see it? Are you sure you want to stick with that? Even when you really try to engage in a conversation, you find a way to be offensive to someone or some group. |
