Some thoughts about the NYT Kavanugh predator story

[deminks]

1. The NYT removed the new witness' name from the story and may have removed the statement about her friends saying she doesn't remember the incident with it, according to the reporters who wrote the piece. The name was at the beginning of the sentence.

2. Read that last part carefully. It is not the new witness who says she doesn't remember, it is 'her friends' who say she doesn't remember. Despite what Donnie tweets, the new witness has not been interviewed.

3. The NYT removed a horrible tweet about thrusting private parts in another's face being 'great fun' to some. They apologized for the tweet.

4. The point of the story is not who is credible, they are all credible. The point is there was no investigation. We know that dozens of witnesses were not interviewed although their names were given to the FBI. We know that dozens more called into the FBI but were turned away. We know that the FBI told one of the accusers that they had to 'wait for authorization' before they investigated. This all the while the GrOPers swore up and down there was a thorough investigation that found nothing.

5. Impeachment means trial. Discovery. Witness interviewing. "I like beer" Kav lied to Congress. Every ruling he makes is suspect. Let Moscow Mitch refuse to remove either Donnie Dumpster or "I like beer" Kav in spite of the evidence. He will regret either act. And now, he is also busy covering his wife's behind.

So, don't clutch those pearls too tightly that they break, don't believe all the 'dems in disarray' stories you will hear today, and be careful with the hand wringing.

IMHO

/rant off.

[J_William_Ryan]

1. True.

Indeed, what the Times may or may not have gotten wrong has nothing to do with ‘Dems,’ in no manner mitigates or undermines legitimate concerns about Kavanagh’s confirmation testimony, and doesn’t change the fact that further investigation into the truthfulness of that testimony is warranted.

[Scarsdale]

2. I have difficulty understanding

why the gop always backs the worst of the worst as candidates for public offices? tRump was never even close to qualified, Kavanagh was a known pervert. WHY are these the chosen ones for the gop leadership? Are they easily manipulated from behind the scenes? After 2 1/2 years of on the job training, tRump is STILL clueless as to what being president entails. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been tarnished by gop electees. Thomas and Kavanagh. Both serial sex abusers. What, exactly is the SC purpose? We all know that at the present time, they will side with the worst president in history, just because they were nominated by the gop. Where does fairness and integrity take over political obedience? Maybe it has lost its' purpose? A job for life needs to be carefully investigated, not given to the easiest person to manipulate by the gop.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. GOP backs the worst because they get away with it over and over

Without consequences, there are no laws.

[vlyons]

5. Because they are corrupt

All GOPers care about is money and power and more money. Gated communities. Access to elite schools and country clubs. Expensive clothes. Fabulous vacations. The corner office. The best that money can buy. So they support assholes with no morals and less brains, but lots of greed, who will do the dirty work of rigging the system to get them more money and power. Tax loopholes galore. No-bid gov contracts for shitty, but profitable work.

It's the corruption, stupid. Follow the money!

[KPN]

6. The ends justify the means. What are the ends?

One party dominance, evangelical dominance, white straight male dominance forever — or at least until the rapture.

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. Maybe their pool of available qualified principled Republicans to choose from...

doesn't exist?

[Skittles]

14. because it takes the worst to keep covering for all the corruption

[FBaggins]

3. #2 is incorrect

The “new witness” is Stier (who appatently was not spoken to either). The previously unreported victim (who also refused to talk to the authors) is the one whose friends say she doesn’t remember. That wouldn’t be publishable as news either way.

[PJMcK]

7. Good observations

My problem with this issue is not that some Democrats went from 0 to 60 to impeachment talk. If they're going to slow-walk an impeachment inquiry about Trump, they're certainly miles and miles from going after Kavanaugh. The Democratic leadership will act with more appropriate restraint and thought.

My problem is with the New York Times.

This episode is just the latest where the Times' editorial staff demonstrated poor judgment, sloppy reporting and editorial mismanagement.

In fact, I was so pissed off yesterday that I cancelled my digital subscription to the Times.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212468321

Take a look at response #21 to see exactly what I'm talking about.

The funny part is that this morning, I received an email from the Times to upgrade my (cancelled) subscription to include their Food section. Screw them.

[malaise]

8. Important post

Rec

[lastlib]

9. "All the witnesses were interviewed."--GOP, 2018 Kavanaugh"investigation"

"All the votes were counted."--GOP, 2000 Bush/Gore election (Florida)

Read as: "All the witnesses that we wanted interviewed were interviewed."
"All the votes that we wanted counted were counted."

That's how they work. Manipulate to their advantage ANY way they can. As long as we play fair with them, we're going to get screwed.

[sharedvalues]

11. Correct. We have to fight power with raw power

The country is at stake.
Dems need to fight with every tool at their disposal.

It is a disgrace that any Dem voted for a single Trump judge. A disgrace.

[Farmer-Rick]

12. Good post. Thanks for the warning about watching out for attacks on Dems

And attacks on liberal concerns.

I would question any comments from supposed liberals who take huge offence because of the article.

It was an article about a book. If you are going to take offence, you should be offended by the publisher of the book.

Maybe those who are truly offended by the information in the book, should organize a good book burning? or ban the book. A good book banning really helps sales.

The bottom line is the FBI was missing in action yet again when it came to a full investigation....But ever since its inception it has been used to further conservative agendas. It rarely does anything at all to protect a liberal or further a liberal policy.

[MadDAsHell]

13. Re: #5, what would we "discover" 30 years later besides competing stories/recollections?

That is the inherent limitation. What can you "investigate" about something that happened decades ago and had no physical evidence? I'm not opposed to an investigation, but by nature it is impossible for this investigation to come up with anything besides a whole bunch of people claiming it happened, and a whole bunch of people claiming it didn't happen.

And a whole bunch of people claiming something did happen, and the accused claiming it didn't, does not equal perjury, no matter how convinced I am that he's lying.

[dalton99a]

15. Kick