lvfritz said, "...but she has ZERO evidence or corroboration of any kind."
Pounding your fist on the table saying there is no corroboration over and over again doesn't make it true. I pasted in my reply to another post where I responded to that same false claim. I have to give you a trigger warning though because upon seeing so much corroboration Doc had a meltdown. Out of curiosity, how do you define the term corroboration?
Start Corroboration
What I have learned in this debate is that most people don't have a good understanding of what corroboration is. In a lot of sexual assault cases, there are no witnesses other than the victim and the perpetrator[s]. For example, with both Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein there were no witnesses other than those two perpetrators and their victims. A big part of the corroboration with Cosby and when Weinstein goes on trial is/will be a pattern of behavior. That is they both have multiple victims that are able to testify that he did the same thing to them.
With Kavanaugh, you have the same thing there are 3-4 known potential victims. Dr. Ford, Julie Swetnick, Deborah Ramirez and a 4th unnamed victim out of Colorado that was reported by a Republican to her Republican Senator and the Republicans sat on it. Even though none of the women knew each other and their paths never crossed, they all tell a similar story that a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them. That is strong corroboration.
Dr. Ford came across as very credible so much so that even Trump, Republican Senators, and various Fox News commentators said she did. I am told Deborah Ramirez is just as credible and has a reputation for being very honest. I don't have enough information on Julie Swetnick to gauge how credible she will come across other than her claims were corroborated by, Elizabeth Rasor, the one time girlfriend of Mark Judge who said that he confessed to her back when they were in high school that he and some of his yet unnamed classmates ran a train on a drunken girl at a party. She made this statement before Julie Swetnick came forward. Rasor has also said she is willing to testify under oath and/or cooperate with the FBI. Mark Judge is now cooperating with the FBI.
You have the matter of Kavanaugh's own calendar which has a July 1, 1982, entry of him, going to "Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” That puts him, Judge, PJ and the guy Ford said introduced her to Judge all together at a party drinking alcohol in the same time frame Ford went to a party where she said Judge and Kavanaugh were drunk and sexually assaulted her. Since this is Kavanaugh's own evidence, it is really hard to refute. Timmy's house was apparently just a few blocks away from Ford's.
Julie Swetnick also claims to have corroborating witnesses of her own. Deborah Ramirez has numerous corroborating witnesses not necessarily that witnessed the act but rather that observed Kavanaugh blackout drunk and belligerent on numerous occasions during his college years which is contrary to his sworn statements. These people include his Freshman roommate, his friends and numerous people that have come forward and said Kavanaugh was lying as he was a heavy drinker even in the context of the times
You have Mark Judge's autobiography where he describes his high school years as having been spent as a blackout drunk and his school "swimming in alcohol." He describes incidents of Kavanaugh being so drunk that he passed out. Which again is contrary to Kavanaugh's sworn testimony.
To summarize, it isn't simply a he said she said. It is a he said she, she, she, and she said. All the women have various forms corroboration. The guy that knows the most about Kavanaugh during his high school days and college days, Mark Judge, is a self-professed addict that admitted to his girlfriend that he participated in a train ran on an intoxicated girl.
Plus, you have the numerous obvious small lies Kavanaugh told in his testimony. When the issue is the kind of things you do when you are drunk stating you never drink to excess under oath is laughable. Making the ridiculous claim that when he said in his yearbook he was a Renate Alumnus it just meant that she was a great friend to all the boys and not the town bicycle. The laughable explanation that the Devil's Triangle was drinking game rather than a 2 guys on one girl threesome. House Republicans got caught editing the Wikipedia page that defined the term during the hearing shortly after he gave his bizarre definition of the term. When the FBI talks to his high school friends you can be sure they will all get the question of what did they understand the terms Devil's Triangle, ralphing, boofing and Renate Alumni to mean. The point being all of these little lies matter. They were under oath and thus perjury. If you can't tell the truth about the little stuff, how can you be trusted to tell the truth about the big stuff?
End Corroboration
lvfritz said, "After the fbi finds nothing, she will file with Maryland to further extend this fiasco."
The FBI is going to find nothing because Trump didn't honor the deal Senate Republicans made. The FBI isn't even allowed to verify Mark Judge's employment with Safeway which was is a key piece of corroboration of Dr. Ford's claim. The FBI isn't interviewing Julie Swetnick or Dr. Ford. The FBI is only allowed to interview four witnesses on a preapproved list. The FBI isn't allowed to ask any witnesses about Kavanaugh's drinking habits during the times in question. The investigation is a complete and total sham.
chef said, "That being said, what will Democrats do if the investigation fails to find anything?"
See the paragraph above. They will find nothing because Trump sabotaged the investigation. For god's sake they aren't even allowed to verify the employment of one of the witnesses. Why do you think that is chef?
chef said, "Kavanaugh has at least one and 5 or 6 FBI background investigations conducted before being nominated for the SCOTUS position and todate, they haven't found anything let alone a history of sexual assult. "
They can't investigate something they don't know about. The more important question is what happens to someone with a security clearance if someone reports new allegations to the agency or contractor they work for?
chef said, "Reguardless if you believe Dr. Ford or not, the accused does have rights and amoung them are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not what do you feel about that but through a proponderance of the evidence. The evidence she presented doesn't show that Kavanaugh committed a crime."
It is a job interview, not a criminal proceeding. If you went to a job interview and the guy wanted to hire you but Marty from accounting said wait my sister went to high school with him and he tried to rape her at a party. You wouldn't get the job and you would have no recourse. Furthermore, you would stand no chance of getting the job if you broke down in the interview, cried like a baby and then yelled at the interviewer because he asked you a question you didn't want to answer. Since it is a lifetime appointment, you simply do not put someone in there that has a credible accusation of sexual assault against them. If you had your own company you wouldn't hire someone that did, so why the hell should someone with that baggage be given a lifetime appointment? Most of the Republicans have already conceded Dr. Ford is credible.
What is going to happen if Republicans put him on the court is when Democrats take the House they will fully investigate these claims and it is not going to be a good look for Republicans when the truth they are so desperately trying to suppress comes out.
Are you Tom or is that somebody else from the old forum?
!Trigger Warning! Look, as I wrote this even more corroboration came out.
Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
Here is the full text of the statement:
I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett’s social circle.
In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.
I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.
I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.
I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will, however, take my information to the F.B.I.
Source
