Listen, if Feinstein cared about Ford she wouldn't have held the information for 6-8 weeks. She would have turned it over to be investigated. She. Did. Not. She waited until the eleventh hour and USED it as a POLITICAL WEAPON to stop the vote. That's what happened. That is the ugly truth. If you're upset that an investigation is not underway blame Feinstein.
As for Kavanaugh being a "proven liar" ... that's a bit of a stretch. Do you know for certain he lied about his yearbook? I don't. Evan is assuming he is lying about it - and maybe he is.... but it's not proven. Do you know what is proven? That Ford lied about her fear of flying. She also proved that she is terrible with remembering dates and times, even recent ones. She also doesn't know who paid for her polygraph, which I find odd. She can't remember if she took it the day of her grandmother's funeral or the day after. She's proven that her memory is not reliable. People thought she was credible. I didn't. Yesterday was not a court of law. That's a good thing for her, because her testimony would be dismantled rather easily. And in truth, the only reason anyone is listening to her now and taking her seriously at all is because of the political setting and what it could possibly mean. Because she has no evidence. It's political.
And this isn't directed at you gangstonc, but I wanted to say something about what people are saying about his anger and his tears yesterday. Because God forbid the man show he is a human being. The media, most of them, are despicable. I've listened to some say he threw a temper tantrum. I've listened to them say that "If a woman were to show that much emotion she would be accused of not being fit to be in a leadership role" and on and on and on. And it's all just crap. Yesterday, the media decided that whatever Kavanaugh did would be wrong. He was never in a position to win. Not enough emotion they would say he was detached and remote. Too much and he's too emotional for leadership. For ten days his character has been murdered with their help and for them to say...how dare he get angry! I suppose the only person allowed to show emotion is the woman. Well, if any of you are ever visciously attacked - called a rapist - accused of sexual assault - may I suggest that you keep your response measured. Don't show too much emotion. I mean, we're only talking about your life. No need to get carried away.
Yes, he is being considered for one of the highest positions in the land and should always behave in a professional manner. But he wasn't being vetted yestereday for his job skills. He was being accused of sexual assault. He's been accused of gang raping women. It was altogether personal. I think he's kept a cool head until now. What we saw yesterday was a human being behaving like a human being defending himself after days of character assassination. This attitude that he shouldn't have reacted this way is completely unfair. He had every reason to react this way. And unless you find yourself sitting in the same seat as he is, no one has the right to say how he should react.
It is proven that he's lying about the Renate stuff. Because there are other yearbook quotes by other males/Kavanaugh buddies that make much more explicit comments about Renate.
The New York Time's article quotes several classmates that say verbal comments were made about Renate. They also quote a couple of the Yearbook quotes. Renate, herself, is upset about the quotes. One of her friends, who also signed the letter supporting Kavanaugh, and still supports him, was "sickened" by the Renate references. I wasn't born yesterday. It was obvious they were saying she was a cheap date. One of them even SAYS so in Yearbook quote by saying: "“You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”
Obviously Renate who signed the letter of support, and her friend who also signed the letter, have zero reason to lie about what the comments meant -- even if you discount the 3-4 other people confirming that the comments were in line with unfair sexual implications about Renate, why would Renate and her friend confirm it? Again, I understand WHY he lied -- but I absolutely think it is proven.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html
As far as the "blackout" from drinking stuff is concerned, I think there is a tiny bit of room for reasonable doubt about that but not much. Self-report studies show that at LEAST 50% of college students in a survey/study reported blacking out from drinking at some point in their life. 40% had blacked out in the past year -- that's out of 74.2% of students overall that had reported drinking in the past two weeks. We don't know if these were en-bloc blackouts (where basically nothing is recalled) or a fragmentary blackout where only part of memories are lost. Self-report surveys about negative drinking behavior are notorious for underreporting even when anonymous.
The most common and important factors for blacking out are binge drinking, adolescence (say early 20s and younger), drinking on an empty stomach, how quickly someone drinks, total amount of alcohol consumed, and the social pressure around you (if others are drinking excessive amounts of alcohol). Obviously Kavanaugh was young. Obviously at least one close friend (Mark Judge) was a heavy drinker, and from testimony and other accounts (such as Judge's book or Kavanaugh being part of the Ralph Club), we know Kavanaugh consumed large amounts of alcohol and at least on one occasion threw up because of it. That implies a fairly quick consumption of alcohol and almost assuredly a high BAC.
Take it all together, and I feel very confident in saying the chance Kavanaugh had at least one blackout in his life was easily 85%+. Look, I've been a male HS student that went to parties and drank. And I also drank in college. I also have plenty of friends that did the same. I don't know of a single one of us that hasn't ever at least partially blacked out. Perhaps Kavanaugh felt he was being truthful because he only had a fragmentary blackout as he possibly could've remembered at least SOME of the prior evening. I can perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt on that. It was obvious that the Dems were asking him that question to suggest that maybe he was blacked out and didn't remember sexually assaulting Ford. He's a very intelligent man -- he knew what they were trying to do. He's probably also aware that "blackout" doesn't mean a total memory loss. At best, I think his response was misleading. It wasn't completely truthful. Again, I wasn't born yesterday.
https://www.verywellmind.com/social-drinkers-can-blackout-too-62810
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180613-why-do-only-some-people-get-blackout-drunk
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-2/186-196.htm
https://www.alcohol.org/effects/dangers-of-blackouts/
https://scholars.duke.edu/display/pub801394
https://www.centeronaddiction.org/the-buzz-blog/science-behind-blacking-out
As far as the Devil's Triangle thing. I noticed later on that other people had the same idea as I did. I scoured Google using the date setting and couldn't find a single mention of Devil's Triangle as a drinking game vs. common usage of other terms to describe the drinking game that Kavanaugh claimed he was referring to. Again, it is possible it was some esoteric inside joke. I won't discount that. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one even though I believe there are at least two examples of him lying or being untruthful on topics that relate to the same kind of question.
Again, I understand why Kavanaugh thought he had to be misleading because he was facing total character assassination. I also understand why the GOP kept resisting an FBI investigation even though it might've been a smarter choice for them. I'm about to post something about that.
