Previously unreported Kavanaugh accuser comes forward with new allegations

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The NYT issues an correction on the new Kavanaugh story. I wonder how Trump will react to this.

The New York Times on Monday added a correction to a report accusing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

The correction notes that friends of the woman allegedly involved in the incident with Kavanaugh during college say she does not recall it.

The Times in the story published Saturday reported a former classmate of Kavanaugh's named Max Stier said he witnessed the now-justice expose himself and force a female classmate to touch his penis at a dorm party. The Times said it corroborated the story with two other officials who had heard the same report from Stier.

However, the woman involved in the alleged incident did not speak to the Times and, according to the correction, her friends say she does not recall that it happened.

For all you witch hunters, raise your hand if you learned something today!

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I learned that you’re an amoral partisan hack who will gladly use whataboutery and other logical fallacies to defend sex predators and attempt to discredit their victims.  Also, this does not in any way change the alternative fact that Kavanaugh tried to rape Dr. Blasey Ford and sexually assaulted Deborah Ramirez.

ftfy since you choose to live in a different reality.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Who paid off his $92,000 country club fee, his $200,000 credit card debt and his $1.2 million mortgage?

Wow that's a deep cut, almost forgot about it.  Wasn't there some baseball tickets too?

Are we cycling through the Wheel of Accusations until one sticks?

[Brittain33]

Whataboutism or assertion are not defenses of perjury, much less sexual assault.

We get it, perjury is not an issue for the Supreme Court if it advances a team’s policy interests.

[Waldo]

Whataboutism or assertion are not defenses of perjury, much less sexual assault.

We get it, perjury is not an issue for the Supreme Court if it advances a team’s policy interests.

And an accusation is not a conviction. You would think the end result of this latest charade would bring about some humility to those who immediately gathered their torches and pitchforks, but it's become clear that your "team" has no humility and no shame. You're not upset that the New York Times was a little quick to the draw with this latest character assassination attempt... you're just sad it didn't work. And still, you deny that you're biased.

Btw, I'm wondering what the whataboutism is that I used. I was simply pointing out the flaw in what you call justice and what rule of law should be.

Do you still kick dogs?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Kavanaugh and Thomas should be removed or step down from the court, preferably in 2021 with a Dem prez.

Don't hold your breath.

[HillGoose]

what on earth.

i've been to some wild parties but i've never seen anything like that and if anyone did that at a party i was at i'd beat their ass. nobody wants to see that.

[DrScholl]

And what is "Hatefullness"? That's not even a word. I had a post deleted in another thread with the same misspelled explanation and all I said basically was that evangelicals aren't as nice as they claim to be.

[Mister Mets]

You were insinuating that only rapists are worried about due process.

I'd imagine most people think that they and their loved ones would be more likely to be accused of sexual assault/ rape than to commit it.

[Badger]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

It's far weaker, considering:
-The allegations against Clinton were reported in a timely manner, as opposed to 36 years later.
-Clinton's accusers had specific memories of the incidents, while Kavanaugh's did not
-The rules of time and space allow the possibility that Clinton's accusers were telling the truth, while they don't for Blasey Ford's testimony.
-Kavanaugh's accusers have known political biases that counter his, while Clinton's accusers have mixed political biases
-Clinton provably lied to Congress about his sexual misadventures, while in Kavanaugh's case, it's nothing but his word against theirs

Except the allegations weren't reported "36 years later". It is well documented that Ford reported the assault to friends and her counselor years--decades even--before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other allegatioms likewise were reported to third parties other than (unsurprisingly) the FBI decades before "36 years later".

Clinton's accusers having specific memories about the incidents and Kavanaugh's accusers not is pertinent, but unfortunately untrue. Or at minimum a debatable assertion subject to the eye of the right wing partisan beholder.

"The laws of time and space" dictate Clinton's accusers might believable but not Kavanaugh's? WTF? Get out of here Issac Hackimov!

Even Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee conceeded Ford was sexually assaulted as she described. They just claimed the poor dear was hysterically mistaken over her assailant. And then worked overtime to bury investigation of every other credible accurser showing Kavanaugh had a SERIOUS issue with such behavior all the way up through (at least) law school.

Yeah, that just screams innocence to me too.

This reminds of E. Jean Carroll, you'll get all pissy and self-righteous for a day or two but then interestingly shut your mouth mouth as information comes out that undermines the story of the accuser. Stop it with this white-knight crap, it isn't fooling anyone

Good Lord, fellow. WTF are you even yammering about?

Stop one moment being so pissy that I appear diplomatic and try explaining what "undermining information" you're referring to?

I ask because, per usual, your post certainly didn't provide any.

IDK, maybe the fact that the woman Max steir(who has worked extensively as a Democratic operative btw) named as being victimized by Kavanaugh denies any memory of the event. I know you aren't too bright and much of your response to this thread has been emotional whining, but Jesus Christ man use some goddamn critical thinking

It's ironic that you say this, because Badger was just bashing a new poster for not using "critical thinking". But that is to be expected of him.

Yeah I saw that too. Very out of character for Badger. He's usually so open minded and willing to consider opposing viewpoints.

Oh, very much so. I do that for a living actually. The problem is that the quality of opposing viewpoints offered by conservatives and Republicans on this forum usually range from laughable to retarded chimpanzee level.

[Badger]

The evidence against a Kavanaugh wasn’t that different from the evidence against Bill on his accusations

It's far weaker, considering:
-The allegations against Clinton were reported in a timely manner, as opposed to 36 years later.
-Clinton's accusers had specific memories of the incidents, while Kavanaugh's did not
-The rules of time and space allow the possibility that Clinton's accusers were telling the truth, while they don't for Blasey Ford's testimony.
-Kavanaugh's accusers have known political biases that counter his, while Clinton's accusers have mixed political biases
-Clinton provably lied to Congress about his sexual misadventures, while in Kavanaugh's case, it's nothing but his word against theirs

Except the allegations weren't reported "36 years later". It is well documented that Ford reported the assault to friends and her counselor years--decades even--before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other allegatioms likewise were reported to third parties other than (unsurprisingly) the FBI decades before "36 years later".

Clinton's accusers having specific memories about the incidents and Kavanaugh's accusers not is pertinent, but unfortunately untrue. Or at minimum a debatable assertion subject to the eye of the right wing partisan beholder.

"The laws of time and space" dictate Clinton's accusers might believable but not Kavanaugh's? WTF? Get out of here Issac Hackimov!

Even Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee conceeded Ford was sexually assaulted as she described. They just claimed the poor dear was hysterically mistaken over her assailant. And then worked overtime to bury investigation of every other credible accurser showing Kavanaugh had a SERIOUS issue with such behavior all the way up through (at least) law school.

Yeah, that just screams innocence to me too.

This reminds of E. Jean Carroll, you'll get all pissy and self-righteous for a day or two but then interestingly shut your mouth mouth as information comes out that undermines the story of the accuser. Stop it with this white-knight crap, it isn't fooling anyone

Good Lord, fellow. WTF are you even yammering about?

Stop one moment being so pissy that I appear diplomatic and try explaining what "undermining information" you're referring to?

I ask because, per usual, your post certainly didn't provide any.

IDK, maybe the fact that the woman Max steir(who has worked extensively as a Democratic operative btw) named as being victimized by Kavanaugh denies any memory of the event. I know you aren't too bright and much of your response to this thread has been emotional whining, but Jesus Christ man use some goddamn critical thinking

I still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are literally chasing your tail at this point.

FTR, why maybe lose some of my moral High Ground since I just criticize right-wing posts on this form is being anywhere from laughable to retarded chimp level in quality, I still feel justified in pointing out that this is at least the fifth or sixth Post in this thread alone where you've lash out at others as being not too bright, not smart, stupid, Etc. The only reason you haven't been fracked is because I think people are ignoring your personal insults more than reacting to them, as is wise. You need to learn there's a very big difference between attacking people's opinions and their personal intelligence. You've always been a sh**tposter, but you still really need to grow up.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

NYT apparently had (like the Washington Post) decided this allegation wasn't newsworthy so they ... put it in the book review section.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/turmoil-engulfs-the-times-over-kavanaugh-debacle

[Calthrina950]

The Democrats need to move past Kavanaugh, and focus on the future. Re-litigating this matter will not have any benefits for the Party, particularly since it seems that this latest allegation rests on very flimsy ground.

[Green Line]

More lies.  More Catholiphobia.  I’m too tired to get riled up right now.  Maybe tomorrow.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, Sanchez (of all people) said it best when he said it about Ralph Northam a few months back: Kavanaugh is a bona fide weirdo, regardless of whether he's a rapist or not.

[Sumner 1868]

You were insinuating that only rapists are worried about due process.

I'd imagine most people think that they and their loved ones would be more likely to be accused of sexual assault/ rape than to commit it.

This isn't about "due process" and NEVER HAS BEEN because Kavanaugh isn't being prosecuted for anything. Ever noticed the worst aspects of the internet all foamed their mouths over him? It's because they think he's a rapist and want him rewarded for it.

I don't even have an opinion over whether he is one or not - but I certainly find his fanatic support from otherwise apolitical types very suspect.

[T'Chenka]

Blue avatars hyena-packing Badger up in here.

Kavanaugh is guilty AND he's going to get away with it. Can't some of y'all in here just admit that? Start with "he's goimg to get away with it..." and then slowly work your way up to "...even though he's guilty".

[Mister Mets]

You were insinuating that only rapists are worried about due process.

I'd imagine most people think that they and their loved ones would be more likely to be accused of sexual assault/ rape than to commit it.

This isn't about "due process" and NEVER HAS BEEN because Kavanaugh isn't being prosecuted for anything. Ever noticed the worst aspects of the internet all foamed their mouths over him? It's because they think he's a rapist and want him rewarded for it.

I don't even have an opinion over whether he is one or not - but I certainly find his fanatic support from otherwise apolitical types very suspect.

If you're not sure whether he's a rapist, it seems absurd to suggest that the only people bothered by the press coverage/ Democrats' behavior would be rapists. People who aren't rapists can be concerned about false allegations.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Anyway, Sanchez (of all people) said it best when he said it about Ralph Northam a few months back: Kavanaugh is a bona fide weirdo, regardless of whether he's a rapist or not.

And on Atlas forum we should be supporting our fellow weirdos.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I strongly opposed Kavanaugh's confirmation. He's an odious character with shady finances who repeatedly perjured himself, showed open contempt for his Senate questioners, and didn't even bother trying to hide his partisanship.

But the circus surrounding this Times article had been ridiculous, and yet another cause to doubt that paper's journalistic credibility. It's also a bad look for the 2020 candidates who immediately jumped to threats of impeachment. I'm still upset that he's on the Supreme Court too, but what are these people thinking?

The core of the Times article seems to me to be the evidence that the FBI "investigation" was a politically-ordered sham. That alone should warrant Kavanaugh's impeachment.

[DrScholl]

And what is "Hatefullness"? That's not even an word. I had a post deleted in another thread with the same misspelled explanation and all I said basically was that evangelicals aren't as nice as they claim to be.

Ironic grammar mistake on a post criticizing someone's grammar mistake...

Oh, dry up. I'm not a moderator here criticizing people and deleting posts. I was actually going to say something else, but didn't want the moderator to flip out and didn't fully edit my post to reflect my rephrasing. One letter is a lot different than a repeated misspelling.

[DrScholl]

Kavanaugh is on the court, so I'm not sure why conservatives simply aren't satisfied with that and are so anxious to shove him down everyone's throat. There is no constitutional right to be liked and due process does not mean "YOU HAVE TO LIKE HIM OR YOU'RE VIOLATING THE LAW!". He can't have his cake and eat it too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, Sanchez (of all people) said it best when he said it about Ralph Northam a few months back: Kavanaugh is a bona fide weirdo, regardless of whether he's a rapist or not.

And on Atlas forum we should be supporting our fellow weirdos.

Depends what kind of weirdo.

[Waldo]

Blue avatars hyena-packing Badger up in here.

Kavanaugh is guilty AND he's going to get away with it. Can't some of y'all in here just admit that? Start with "he's goimg to get away with it..." and then slowly work your way up to "...even though he's guilty".

Interesting, because both Ford's best friend (who Ford put at the scene of the alleged attempted assault) and her father doubt her story, and everyone who knows Kavanaugh personally including RBG speak weill of him. Apparently you know something everyone else doesn't. Why aren't you the one testifying?

[Waldo]

Anyway, Sanchez (of all people) said it best when he said it about Ralph Northam a few months back: Kavanaugh is a bona fide weirdo, regardless of whether he's a rapist or not.

And on Atlas forum we should be supporting our fellow weirdos.

Thank you for seeing sense. I'm sure we disagree on many things, but this is refreshing. More people should take your example.

[Waldo]

Kavanaugh is on the court, so I'm not sure why conservatives simply aren't satisfied with that and are so anxious to shove him down everyone's throat. There is no constitutional right to be liked and due process does not mean "YOU HAVE TO LIKE HIM OR YOU'RE VIOLATING THE LAW!". He can't have his cake and eat it too.

I'm confused... even as a conservative, I've never heard anyone tell anyone else to "like" Kavanaugh, let alone say that disliking him is against the law. Are you well?