Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is NOT what it says in that video, Megyn Kelly said the accusation was revealed by Feinstein, they did not say that Feinstein revealed her name, watch it again. Kelly said that Feinstein mentioned the incident to Kavanaugh in their one on one but that Feinstein did not name her.
Ryan Grim, the first to report her name claims he did not get her name from Feinstein
I have not watched the entire video--but I will
I did watch the part where Kelly refers to Feinstein asking Kavanaugh about the anonymous report--
Kelly says "why wouldn't Feinstein ask him---
She didn't say Feinstein DID ASK Kavanaugh about Ford's accusation w/o giving her name
But with that cleared up--I think some of my theory might still hold water...
I too have wondered how Ed Whelan knew about Christine Ford as the specific accuser
So that he could work on creating the dopplelanger story he floated to create doubt about Ford's credibility and Kavanaugh's involvement
He had time to put that story together and I think from what I understand he would have had to start BEFORE her name was known at large---
Now Whelan is BIG friend of Kavanaugh from long time
He has subsequently had to leave the pro-conservative front he was heading because of the fallout from his lame story--
But also because he has gone to ground and doesnt' want to give any evidence about how he came to know about Christine Ford/Bret Kavanaugh accusations
I definitely hope the FBI questions him
And I think it behooves Ryan Grim to consider revealing how his information was obtained because
1--IF Feinstein did mention this to Kavanaugh in their private face-to-face w/o naming Ford
2--Kavanaugh then had a head's up about what had been revealed about his past
3--HE certainly might remember that event and the specific girl (not just "some" girl) and discussed it with his friend Ed and others who have a dedicated interest in Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court
4--Whelan certainly knew about Ford's LinkedIn page
5--because of Kavanaugh's calendar habit, he could have had pretty specific idea of who was at that party and suggested the name of the doppelgänger to use to create a second scenario
6--Whelan used the same conservative media company to help with his blitz of this story against Ford that created and ran the Swift Boat ads against Kerry--
They are not unknown in DC circles for their hatchet jobs against those who threaten conservatives
7--it is certainly possible that they felt the name could be revealed at any time during the hearings and it was to THEIR benefit to try to control the narrative--to get a jump on creating an alternative set of facts to rival Ford's story
To me this definitely seems like something Trump would support--
To be aggressive and to take control of the story, to throw accuser's story into as much doubt and lack of credibility as you can...
Thanks for posting this--
Going back to watch and note the specific language Kelly uses...
How did SHE know that Feinstein brought this to Kavanaugh's attention during their face to face
Is that mentioned in the video???
Last edited by loves2read; 09-29-2018 at 10:11 AM..
Here is how to spot biased news. Two examples just this morning:
Yahoo News page
"Jeff Flake brings Senate back from the brink." The article implied Flake did a heroic deed. It's opinion, not reporting. Should have read "Jeff Flake requested another FBI investigation." Those are facts, not feeeeeelinngs.
CBS radio
The news reader said, "President Trump grudgingly approved another FBI investigation at the grudging request of Sen. Jeff Flake."
He should have said, "President Trump approved another FBI investigation at the request of Sen. Jeff Flake." Facts, not feeeeeelinngs.
This is why elite media is dying. Now I have to find a different source of news. Probably listen online since the CBS station was the only all news station in my city, as far as I know.
And what have the Clintons done to Kavanaugh in all the years since he was involved in the Ken Starr/Clinton impeachment event?
Did they keep him from getting multiple jobs in the WH?
From getting a job with a pretty prestigious law firm between those jobs??
Did they keep him from being appointed to the DC Court of Appeals??
Did they send in false accusations at these prior committee hearings???
The Clintons have done NOTHING to Kavanaugh--and he knows it--
The fact that Kavanaugh called the Clintons into his testimony was a play/homage to Trump---
He wasn't playing to anyone else except Trump and his supporters who believe in the "Deep State" conspiracy...
I owe you a couple of rep points. I was shocked when Kavanaugh brought up the Clinton's in his opening statement! If they really had/have as much power as he's claiming he'd be a nobody in the justice system by now. I'd say he's suffering from a lot of guilt, maybe from the fact that he wouldn't drop the investigation into Vince Foster's suicide even after his family begging him to. I can't believe we couid end up with a Supreme Court Justice who buys into ridiculous conspiracy theories and who lied under oath about petty things like the meaning of notations in his year book.
"Sanctimonious memo?" "Salacious queries?" "Strongly opposed to giving Clinton any break in the questioning?" "He should be forced to account for all that he did and defend his actions?" Oh my gosh, I'm clutching my pearls over here.
My gosh, this is THE HEAD OF THE FREE WORLD getting blow jobs beneath the desk in the Oval Office by a 20 year old intern! The same man who left semen on her little blue dress! The same man who DID "insert cigars into her vagina!" Lord have mercy. I can't imagine how he was allowed to remain in office, how or why his wife stood by him, why he didn't end up in freaking jail. Any CEO of any company in the US would have been fired and in absolute disgrace and charged with multiple crimes. Instead, we nearly put him back to bed in the White House again, and he's still called Mr. President and protected by tax dollars, still receiving a retirement salary, yada yada yada.
It was an absolutely disgusting and appalling chapter in our history as a nation. I lived overseas at the time and remember being actually embarrassed to be an American at that time. The details of this fiasco were totally disgusting and it was Bill Clinton who performed them.
You can't honestly believe that Bill Clinton is the only U.S. President to get blow jobs beneath the Oval Office desk?
There is no speculation in this 15,000+ post thread that is more imaginative than yours is in your post above.
In fact, there is no clear evidence that Ford and Kavanaugh ever even met, much less that they had the interaction that you are speculatively imagining. There is also no evidence that this party - with the particular people that Ford says were at it - ever occurred. All of the people who Ford named as being there say it did not. Also it is not even known when or where this incident supposedly took place.
The biq issue here is not whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court or whether he engaged in any sexual improprieties in high school. The big issue here is whether we as a society will accept as valid an expectation that a COMPLETELY uncorroborated accusation from 37 years ago should be assumed to be true and that the person accused, who denies the allegation, should be assumed to be lying. And in this instance even though it has been refuted by the three fact witnesses that the accuser named, including her life-long friend Leland, who insists she has never met Kavanaugh at any time.
This startling expectation by you and others of your political stripe is a refutation of our most basic constitutional principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty. These are criminal allegations and must be treated as such. If someone is guilty of these allegations, we have a legal system that is designed to determine that and respond to it. If these allegations cannot be confirmed by a criminal court, then the accused must be presumed to be innocent. Even for, and maybe especially for, the purpose of job interviews.
If despite no criminal conviction, or even any corroborating evidence - of any kind - a person accused is given by default a determination of guilt, then our individual liberties are gone. This is what is at stake here and this is what you are advocating for, whether you realize it, or accept it, or not. Nobody will be safe, because all that is needed is someone like you to initiate a false allegation against someone and their life is destroyed, with no legitimate possibility of self defense or recovery.
This is the main issue here, and not anything having to do with Brett Kavanaugh's behavior in high school or his suitability to be on the Supreme Court.
The most important issue here is whether we will continue to protect and defend individual liberty here in this country, or not. You can try to spin it how you like, but you and the others who are on your side are arguing against it. This is really scary stuff and nobody should be fooled into thinking that this is only about nominating a Supreme Court justice, when it is actually about something much more important.
People who are advocating for the dismantling of the protections around our most fundamental personal protections and individual liberties, must be opposed as vigorously as is needed. Our founding fathers fielded armies, drew weapons, killed, fought and died for these rights and protections. Certainly we in this generation must be ready to do the same, against all enemies to these treasured rights, both foreign and domestic.
We are at a crossroads as a nation right now, and the issues we are dealing with here are bigger and more important than most people realize. I implore you to reconsider your priorities around this issue and to not to be on the wrong side of history, and also of humanity.
Here we go. Cavuto claiming fbi is investigating Swetnick and Ramirez. Weren’t they told NOT to do that?
I'm sorry, I don't know if I understand what you're saying. The FBI is supposed to be investigating Kavanaugh's past behavior. Why wouldn't they go to these two women who had made claims against him?
Or are you saying they are investigating these women's pasts now?
We shall soon see who is control of the FBI. The FBI or deep state.
There is also no guarantee if any of the witnesses now change their story that they will be charged with purjury. They CAN, but it doesn’t mean they WILL be
Am I correct in assuming all the people who may be taking lie detector tests given by the FBI will also include Ford? Why wouldn't she take another one since Kavanaugh is submitting to his SEVENTH FBI investigation and would take a lie detector test if asked. Unless she knows she couldn't pass.
We shall soon see who is control of the FBI. The FBI or deep state.
So, if the FBI's findings align with your opinion, they're good. If they don't, they're in with a supposed "deep state" (a total right-ring nutcase fantasy)? Got it.
I just saw that the FBI investigation report will NOT be made public, only Senate Committee members will have access
What in the world?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
