Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Joods]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/...index.html

The last person supposedly at the party - a female friend of Ford - says she never met Kavanaugh, and the party never happened.

CNN has learned that the committee has reached out to a longtime friend of Ford named Leland Ingham Keyser.

"I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article," a committee staffer wrote Keyser earlier this week.

On Saturday night, her lawyer, Howard Walsh, released a statement to CNN and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Simply put," Walsh said, "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."

---

So, Ford named 4 people who were at the party. All 4 deny there was such a party. Can we end this now?

bolding mine. 

I love how you twist the words to mean what you want them to. Having no recollection of ever being at a party isn't the same thing as a party that never happened. Idiot. There's lots of things I don't recall as a teen. That doesn't mean they never happened though. 

And you tell me I say stupid things. Look in the mirror dickwad. At least be man enough to get your facts straight.

[John V]

Er, OK, she said there was a party with 4 other people, and none of the other 4 have any recollection of such a party. Happy now? It doesn't change anything.

I figured you guys would cut hairs rather than let it go. You didn't disappoint.

[Angrboda]

Er, OK, she said there was a party with 4 other people, and none of the other 4 have any recollection of such a party. Happy now? It doesn't change anything.

I figured you guys would cut hairs rather than let it go. You didn't disappoint.

The Republicans are eager to end this. If those four can testify that the party didn't happen, why don't the Republicans subpoena them and end this? Explain that.

If the truth of the matter is that the party never happened, and the testimony of those four can establish that, then their testimony is directly contradictory to Blasey Ford's and the committee should subpoena them.

The reason they don't is because testimony that they don't recall a party isn't testimony that a party didn't happen. They know that, even if some of their more moronic minions like you do not.

Or, have it your way, that the Republicans are in this way demonstrating that they aren't interested in the truth.

[Jehanne]

I like how "innocent until proven guilty' is only true for white rich people.  Black men though?  Guilty until proven innocent, and event hen they'll dig up whatever they can to make them look bad.  Including 8 grams of marijuana.  Funny how that works.

For the LAST time, this is NOT a criminal case (not yet, at least); criminal standards of evidence and/or procedure do NOT apply here!!

[Joods]

Er, OK, she said there was a party with 4 other people, and none of the other 4 have any recollection of such a party. Happy now? It doesn't change anything.

I figured you guys would cut hairs rather than let it go. You didn't disappoint.

You cut hairs all the time. Learned it from you. 

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch with the pups.

[John V]

The Republicans are eager to end this.  If those four can testify that the party didn't happen, why don't the Republicans subpoena them and end this?  Explain that.

Maybe they will, but it seems unnecessary. Exactly what questions would you have the committee ask about a party that they weren't at?

The reason they don't is because testimony that they don't recall a party isn't testimony that a party didn't happen.  They know that, even if some of their more moronic minions like you do not.

Oh please, do I have to go back and get some of the more positively worded statements that some made? Again? This is pathetic.

[Angrboda]

The reason they don't is because testimony that they don't recall a party isn't testimony that a party didn't happen.  They know that, even if some of their more moronic minions like you do not.

Oh please, do I have to go back and get some of the more positively worded statements that some made? Again? This is pathetic.

"I absolutely, positively, most affirmatively don't remember any such event or act." Do any of those more positively worded statements have them remembering something that they don't remember?

You're a fucking moron, alpha. Whether you're acting like one just to push a partisan conclusion or because you really are one, the effect is the same.

Oh look. Your logic is so ridiculous it's even been made into a funny T-shirt!



Here's a thought. Why don't we contact Mueller. Apparently Jeff Sessions has a lot of positive testimony about what didn't happen.

[John V]

Oh please, do I have to go back and get some of the more positively worded statements that some made? Again? This is pathetic.

"I absolutely, positively, most affirmatively don't remember any such event or act."  Do any of those more positively worded statements have them remembering something that they don't remember?

You're a fucking moron, alpha.  Whether you're acting like one just to push a partisan conclusion or because you really are one, the effect is the same.

First, you're agreeing with me that there's no need to question them further.

Second, went through this already:

Last I heard, Judge simply doesn't recall.

Wrong. "Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

Oh look.  Your logic is so ridiculous it's even been made into a funny T-shirt!

Rather, your position is so weak you have to resort to memes now.  

[Angrboda]

You're a joke, alpha. You've convinced me that you really believe what you're saying. That's just sad.

[Joods]

Then, answer my question -- If he admitted to Ford's accusations, would you continue to support him as a SCOTUS nominee?

Yes. Because he would have been a minor. IMO it is unethical to hold adults accountable for their entire lives because of juvenile crimes. Do you agree or not? Do you feel crimes committed when someone was a minor should punish them for the rest of their lives and prevent them from achieving as much as they possibly could as adults?

Think about a teenager shooting someone. There have been children as young as 12 charged and tried as an adult. I realize I am going to get accused of comparing a murder charge to a sexual assault charge, but my point is this: If a person is old enough to determine right from wrong, then they should be held accountable for their actions. At age 17, you're one year shy of being legally able to do a lot of adult things such as renting an apartment and signing a legally binding contract. What if he had been 3 days shy of his 18th birthday? Would that have really made much of a difference? I think not. 

She was 15 years old. In many states, that is under the age of consent.

So if, and that's a big if, he admits to doing what Ford said he did - then he should have to face the consequences and his nomination should be withdrawn. 

If he passes a lie detector test, as she did, then I think that should be considered as well and his nomination should stand. Particularly so because if a lie detector is going to be considered as a basis for her credibility, then it should be for him as well. Fair is fair.