Do conservative really believe that "Kavanaugh has been smeared by the media." How so? I listened to his testimony myself. He was not forthcoming - he was evasive and combative - he dissembled and gave misleading statements about ways to drink, ("Boofing") "drinking games," (Devil's Triangle is NOT a drinking game AT ALL) and drinking ages. Have you seen this graphic?
More significantly though, he continually said Dr. Ford's account had been "refuted" by the very people she named at the party. Actually, one has said she believes Dr. Ford, and the others have said they don't remember or can't recall. That's a FAR cry from "refuted," as Kavanaugh repeatedly and erroneously claimed.
I also listened to Dr. Ford's testimony which sounded anything but "hazy" to me. She remembered specific details (She went upstairs to use the restroom, she was pushed from behind into a bedroom, she was wearing a bathing suit under her clothes, there was music playing and Kavanaugh turned it up, he covered her mouth when she screamed, etc.) and was quite forthright about wanting to provide as much information as possible (See graph above).
Are you implying she doesn't actually suffer PTSD since she didn't want to fly to DC before the FBI investigated her claims? (Speaking of which, Kavanaugh has been investigated six times in his lifetime, PRIOR to Dr. Ford's allegations - until now, none of those FBI investigations would have included Ford's claims.) Nonetheless, do you think there might be a difference between flying somewhere in the world on vacation and flying to DC to detail and relive the most horrendous moment of your life in front of the whole wide world?
I've also seen conservatives wonder aloud what took so long for her to come forward. I'm sure you've seen the posts going around by women titled, "Why I Didn't Report My Assault" - needless to say, shame and disbelief rank high among the reasons why women don't report sooner. I guess you don't believe Dr. Ford when she said it was "her duty as a citizen" to testify when she saw that Kavanaugh was being considered as the next justice of the SCOTUS? Or maybe you are suggesting Feinstein should've broken her pledge of confidentiality to Dr. Ford and told the Judiciary Committee about the letter before the media leaked her name? (Btw, The Intercept - the site that broke the story about Ford's letter - tweeted a few days ago that Feinstein's office did not leak her letter to them.) https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1045441295282556928
I think everyone can agree on presumption of innocence for the accused. Where we may disagree is to whom this principle is afforded. Does it apply to POC? How about Dems? For example, do you think that Hillary Clinton is innocent? What did those Benghazi investigations find, anyway? (As a side note, do you think she could have shouted and cried during her testimony like Kavanaugh did and then been praised for it?) Seriously, has "Crooked Hillary" ever been convicted of any crime? But do conservatives still think she is guilty? Where's that presumption of innocence for her? And what's up with Kavanaugh blaming Clinton for Dr. Ford stepping forward? Was he feeding the base a line reminiscent of, "Lock her up," an applause line that contradicts your insistence on due process? What does he have against the Clintons anyway? After all, Kavanaugh was the one that reopened the Vince Foster case years after it had been proven he killed himself. Here's a recent excerpt from the Times about this very topic:
WILENTZ (9/5/18): "Mr. Kavanaugh served under Mr. Starr as associate independent counsel between 1994 and 1997, and then again in 1998. Although not yet a judge, he was charged with investigating impartially what Attorney General Janet Reno deemed substantial accusations of misconduct arising from a failed real estate investment known as Whitewater.
Judge Starr’s predecessor as independent counsel, Robert Fiske, had looked into unfounded claims that the White House counsel Vincent Foster, who committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park in 1993, had in fact been murdered as part of an alleged White House cover-up related to Whitewater. After a thorough investigation, Mr. Fiske concluded in 1994 that there was nothing to the conspiracy theories and that Mr. Foster, who suffered from depression, had indeed killed himself. Official accounts by the National Park Service in 1993 and by a Republican congressman, William Clinger, the ranking member of the House Government Affairs Committee in 1994, came to an identical conclusion, as did a bipartisan report of the Senate Banking Committee early in 1995.
But shortly after the Senate report was released, Mr. Kavanaugh convinced Mr. Starr to reopen what he called a “full-fledged” investigation of the Foster matter, telling his colleagues, as justification, that “we have received allegations that Mr. Foster’s death related to President and Mrs. Clinton’s involvement” in Whitewater and other alleged scandals.
...
Mr. Kavanaugh noted in various memos that he personally believed that Mr. Foster had indeed committed suicide — “my thoughts, not the Office’s position,” he clarified at one point. But he did not file away the harebrained theories; instead, he apparently felt obligated to address the conspiracy-mongers’ already disproved fantasies. And for nearly three years at a cost of $2 million he aggressively followed up.
...
Of course, Mr. Kavanaugh proved nothing new, as there was nothing new to prove except in conspiratorial illusion. But there was nothing funny about his Inspector Clouseau performance. For months, his inquiries callously harassed a grieving family and Mr. Foster’s friends. His office spread malicious sexual innuendo about Hillary Clinton, whom he seems to have regarded as prey. By reopening a closed investigation, he irresponsibly gave the Foster conspiracy freaks credibility to continue smearing the Clintons and poison public debate for another three years, all at the taxpayers’ expense."
Anyway, how has that sacred principle of presumption of innocence worked out for POC who've run afoul of the law? After all, there's a long list of deceased POC that weren't afforded this privilege since they were killed by law enforcement before they could exercise their right as an American to due process in a court of law. Could race also play a role in whether the police presume your innocence? I'm just asking.
But I guess when it comes right down to it, I just have to wonder what evidence the FBI could possibly find that would make you believe Dr. Ford over Judge Kavanaugh. Is there anything that persuasive?
Either way, regardless of whether you believe Dr. Ford or not, if Kavanaugh's testimony last week - his blatant partisanship, injudicious temperament, and misleading statements - doesn't already make you think he might not be cut out for a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in our country, then what new piece of information from 36 years ago could the FBI possibly find that will change your mind?
And that's not even mentioning how Repubs handled Merrick Garland... But, if you've made it this far, I'm sure you've heard quite enough from me. I'll save it for another time. :)
