Kavanaugh Confirmation

Spent 6 days assessing her memories?
Here's the classmates' statements. Not really an indictment like the headline is trying to suggest:

(Two students who initially signed the statement, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing, approached The New Yorker after the publication of this article and asked that their names be removed from it. “I never saw or heard anything like this,” Garry said. “But I cannot dispute Ramirez’s allegations, as I was not present.” Ewing also said he had no direct knowledge of the allegation and considered it out of character for Kavanaugh, but emphasized, “I also was not present and therefore am not in a position to directly dispute Ramirez’s account.”)

It sounds out of character but since they were not there they cannot say. Honest. "I wasn't there so I can't dispute anyone's claim"

Unlike the article's use of sources.

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.
So no actual sources yet they present as proof:

A classmate of Ramirez’s, who declined to be identified because of the partisan battle over Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that another student told him about the incident either on the night of the party or in the next day or two. The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez.
No direct knowledge. Heard from someone else.

And
Another classmate, Richard Oh, an emergency-room doctor in California, recalled overhearing, soon after the party, a female student tearfully recounting to another student an incident at a party involving a gag with a fake penis, followed by a male student exposing himself.
Again, no actual witness. This isn't even I was told. It's "I overheard."

Shoddy journalism imo. Just want to get something out there for clicks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
Here's the classmates' statements. Not really an indictment like the headline is trying to suggest:
5F097823-BC49-4646-9CBF-8B9A46DB898C.jpeg

Also that looks like a cached version prior to an update to their update. Here’s what it says now. At least when I click on it.

This story was updated with comments from two former classmates of Kavanaugh, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing, who initially signed a statement of support for Kavanaugh provided by his attorneys. They approached The New Yorker after this story was published and asked that their names be removed from the statement, saying that they did not wish to dispute Ramirez’s claims.

Totally different tone to the update and retraction
 
I understand remembering being sexually assaulted 30 years ago. But remembering overhearing that someone pulled out a gag or exposed themselves...I guess these people have impeccable memory.
 
Uh huh. Tucker Carlson, a GOP-water toting rube, turned Avenatti’s sphincter inside out, and made him lick it.

You people are more gullible than my 3 year old.
I watched that interview. Avenatti is an idiot but Tucker did nosuch thing.
 
Kavanaugh claimed in the interview he was a virgin until after high school. Something like “many years” after.

Now how long before we hear the claims that they slept with him in high school or college? Gonna put the number at 5 before sunup on Tuesday.
 
Skepticism of Eyewitnesses Was a Cause Célèbre Until Last Week, for Some Reason

The New Yorker is one of the greatest journalistic institutions in our formidable nation. So when the New Yorker tells me to be skeptical of eyewitness testimony—that it's unreliable; that it leads to false convictions—well, I listen! Here's a passage from the New Yorker two years ago, in an intensely reported piece about the wrongful conviction of a man for rape:
In a dissenting opinion in 1981, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote that "eyewitness identification evidence is notoriously unreliable." Dozens of scientific studies support this claim. Nevertheless, eyewitness testimony continues to be used widely, and many criminal cases hinge on it almost exclusively. Since 1989, two hundred and eighty people have been exonerated of sexual-assault charges in the U.S. Nearly three-quarters of those wrongful convictions relied, in whole or in part, on a mistaken identification by an eyewitness.

Psychologists have long recognized that human memory is highly fallible. Hugo Münsterberg taught in one of the first American psychology departments, at Harvard. In a 1908 book called "On the Witness Stand," he argued that, because people could not know when their memories had deceived them, the legal system’s safeguards against lying—oaths, penalties for perjury, and so on—were ineffective. He expected that teachers, doctors, and politicians would all be eager to reform their fields. "The lawyer alone is obdurate," Münsterberg wrote.​
MORE:
Skepticism of Eyewitnesses Was a Cause Célèbre Until Last Week, for Some Reason - Washington Free Beacon
 
Kavanaugh claimed in the interview he was a virgin until after high school. Something like “many years” after.

Now how long before we hear the claims that they slept with him in high school or college? Gonna put the number at 5 before sunup on Tuesday.

If he isn't telling the truth, it seems likely someone would call him on it before Thursday.
 
Kavanaugh claimed in the interview he was a virgin until after high school. Something like “many years” after.

Now how long before we hear the claims that they slept with him in high school or college? Gonna put the number at 5 before sunup on Tuesday.
While I tend to believe all of this is BS, his virginity, is totally irrelevant.
 
While I tend to believe all of this is BS, his virginity, is totally irrelevant.

Not if he just lied about it to the whole world, then It suddenly becomes relevant to everyone that may or may not have been lied to. I guessing foremost his wife, but just a guess.

Last call for witnesses of the K Train. It's about to get really dirty, apparently.
 
Not if he just lied about it to the whole world, then It suddenly becomes relevant to everyone that may or may not have been lied to. I guessing foremost his wife, but just a guess.

Last call for witnesses of the K Train. It's about to get really dirty, apparently.

About to get dirty?! 😳🤪
 
Not if he just lied about it to the whole world, then It suddenly becomes relevant to everyone that may or may not have been lied to. I guessing foremost his wife, but just a guess.

Last call for witnesses of the K Train. It's about to get really dirty, apparently.
Putting a lot of hope in the weird porn lawyer huh
 
maxresdefault.jpg
You joined the K train!!! Omgosh hades froze over
 
Not if he just lied about it to the whole world, then It suddenly becomes relevant to everyone that may or may not have been lied to. I guessing foremost his wife, but just a guess.

Last call for witnesses of the K Train. It's about to get really dirty, apparently.
I think you missed my point. It would be epically stupid for him to lie about that number one. However him being a virgin has no bearing on attempted sexual assault or flaunting his junk. That’s what he is being accused of. He could do both of those and still be a virgin.
 
I think you missed my point. It would be epically stupid for him to lie about that number one. However him being a virgin has no bearing on attempted sexual assault or flaunting his junk. That’s what he is being accused of. He could do both of those and still be a virgin.

I get your point, admittedly missing it previously. I figured maybe he told his wife he was a virgin or exaggerated his lack of carnal knowledge. I can't understand why he would say that, otherwise.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top