The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud

[CharisRose]

I'm not interested in proving what side of the coin is correct. I've not started a thread on the matter but I've given my opinion. I do see several people have been triggered over the article. Starting threads such as this one. Perhaps your time would be better spent with them. Clearly they are concerned.

Thank you for clarifying you are not interested in proving your coin idea.

I wouldn't expect a thread being started by someone who isn't that interested in the News Story.

I will agree that you have given your opinion. An opinion based on conjecture.

Well, you have spent time posting on such a thread with them and me..... just like I have spent my time with them and you on such a thread.

Roseann

 

[3leftsdoo]

Didn't need to. Apparently some of you are under the impression that if a victim doesn't recall something which other people allegedly witnessed then nothing should come of it.

Okay..........................................

 

[3leftsdoo]

The Libbos got punked again! This is a weekly thing! :lamo

Fool me once?

Shame on you!

Fool me 6,000 times?

I must be a liberal!

 

[SkyFox76]

Thank you for clarifying you are not interested in proving your coin idea.

I wouldn't expect a thread being started by someone who isn't that interested in the News Story.

I will agree that you have given your opinion. An opinion based on conjecture.

Well, you have spent time posting on such a thread with them and me..... just like I have spent my time with them and you on such a thread.

Roseann

:lamo

Heads=FBI interviewed Stier

Tails=FBI didn't interview Stier

Better now?

 

[Barnacle]

...

Holy Moley! The NY Times, once again, gets busted for fabricating and publishing fake news.

And Grassley just now ripped the NYT a new one ...


Senator Grassley Criticizes New York Times' Reporting on Justice Kavanaugh Allegations | C-SPAN.org

 

[trixare4kids]

And Grassley just now ripped the NYT a new one ...


Senator Grassley Criticizes New York Times' Reporting on Justice Kavanaugh Allegations | C-SPAN.org

Thanks! I was looking for a good Italian gravy recipe, and I saw this just posted. WOW!!!!!!!

Who will watch the watchman?

 

[trixare4kids]

The whole thing was a "change the narrative" piece. After finding out that the motives of Ford were politically motivated something had to be done to change what the public was talking about. What better than to print a debunked old accusation as a fresh new allegation. It will be the talk all weekend long instead of people discussing Ford's politically motivated smear campaign, and what more did she lie about.

Excellent observations!

 

[CharisRose]

:lamo

Heads=FBI interviewed Stier

Tails=FBI didn't interview Stier

Better now?

Not better

Page #13 Post # 130

Your QUOTE: I'm not interested in proving what side of the coin is correct. I've not started a thread on the matter but I've given my opinion. I do see several people have been triggered over the article. Starting threads such as this one. Perhaps your time would be better spent with them. Clearly they are concerned.

I was responding to the section in bold.^

My response to that bold section follows in bold...

Originally Posted by CharisRose "Thank you for clarifying you are not interested in proving your coin idea."


Since, I told you I understood the coin symbolism since the first time you used it. Plus, there were follow up posts where I explained again that I "got the symbolism".

I thought you would understand that... I was thanking you for clarifying that you were not interested in proving which side of the coin was correct.

Hoping this will be the last time I need to explain it to you again.

NOTE: The symbolism of what both sides of the coin represent via your following examples.

Heads=FBI interviewed Stier

Tails=FBI didn't interview Stier

Is not the same as your interest in proving which side of the coin is correct.

Roseann

 

[SkyFox76]

Not better

Page #13 Post # 130

Your QUOTE: I'm not interested in proving what side of the coin is correct. I've not started a thread on the matter but I've given my opinion. I do see several people have been triggered over the article. Starting threads such as this one. Perhaps your time would be better spent with them. Clearly they are concerned.

I was responding to the section in bold.^

My response to that bold section follows in bold...

Originally Posted by CharisRose "Thank you for clarifying you are not interested in proving your coin idea."


Since, I told you I understood the coin symbolism since the first time you used it. Plus, there were follow up posts where I explained again that I "got the symbolism".

I thought you would understand that... I was thanking you for clarifying that you were not interested in proving which side of the coin was correct.

Hoping this will be the last time I need to explain it to you again.

NOTE: The symbolism of what both sides of the coin represent via your following examples.

Heads=FBI interviewed Stier

Tails=FBI didn't interview Stier

Is not the same as your interest in proving which side of the coin is correct.

Roseann

Why is it interacting with you is always like a bad reaction to medication?

You pulled some "prove it" card out of thin air when there was nothing to prove. Take it or leave it.

 

[maxparrish]

Mind you, I was not happy (nor engaged) on Kavenaugh's nomination for ideological reasons and my own wary impression of his personea. But that said, the thread OP is quite correct - this "story" is a legless excercise in baseless accusations and lurid hysteria, posing as "the best" reportage that the NYT can push out from the constipated bowels of the Trump resistance.

In a nutshell, this "story" is an disinterred embellishment of a story that was already still born in the New Yorker, last Sept of 2018. A "Debbie Ramirez", a quite fuzzy memoryed former freshman at Yale some 35 ago, alleged that while she was heavily intoxicated at a dorm party, Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and waved his ****, causing her to "accidently" touch it. The "details" escaped her because, she said, it was so long ago, she was blitzed, and her memories being clouded by being having been very unhappy at Yale, anyway.

No eyewitnesses, only hearsay "sources" promoted by the notorious porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. A dead trope...or was it? Under the Trump resistance rule that no unsupported smear is truly DOA, a year late a Max Stier, former attorney for Hillary Clinton, publicly claims he saw at ANOTHER drunken dorm party something like this, naming the woman supposedly victimized.

This story is, in spite of all the breathless story-telling, is even LESS credible than the uncorroborated Ramirez vague recollections. First, the FBI knew of the allegation by Stiers and didn't find it credible enough to investigate. Democratic Senators also knew of the allegation by Stier's and in spite of their tireless efforts at exhuming dirt on Kavanaugh apparently also dismissed it as too flimsy to pursue. And Stier's refused to go public then or (apparently) now, and the alleged victim doesn't even remember any such thing happening.

That's the whole story...a bottom-feeding nothing burger that might have been mistaken as a super-market tabloid front-pager, competing with Martha Stewarts secret alien abduction and Bill Clinton's alleged love child with Nancy Pelosi.

Pathetic.

 

[CharisRose]

Why is it interacting with you is always like a bad reaction to medication?

You pulled some "prove it" card out of thin air when there was nothing to prove. Take it or leave it.

Awww :boohoo: No one has been forcing you to interact with me or to suffer through that bad reaction you speak of...

That has been solely your choice. And, now you have chosen to keep it up... with this post.

Yes, I did. Just making a point that you couldn't prove either way what the F.B.I. did or did not do concerning an investigation and now pointing out you still can't.

My choice now is to leave it...

:2wave: Roseann

 

[trixare4kids]

Mind you, I was not happy (nor engaged) on Kavenaugh's nomination for ideological reasons and my own wary impression of his personea. But that said, the thread OP is quite correct - this "story" is a legless excercise in baseless accusations and lurid hysteria, posing as "the best" reportage that the NYT can push out from the constipated bowels of the Trump resistance.

In a nutshell, this "story" is an disinterred embellishment of a story that was already still born in the New Yorker, last Sept of 2018. A "Debbie Ramirez", a quite fuzzy memoryed former freshman at Yale some 35 ago, alleged that while she was heavily intoxicated at a dorm party, Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and waved his ****, causing her to "accidently" touch it. The "details" escaped her because, she said, it was so long ago, she was blitzed, and her memories being clouded by being having been very unhappy at Yale, anyway.

No eyewitnesses, only hearsay "sources" promoted by the notorious porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. A dead trope...or was it? Under the Trump resistance rule that no unsupported smear is truly DOA, a year late a Max Stier, former attorney for Hillary Clinton, publicly claims he saw at ANOTHER drunken dorm party something like this, naming the woman supposedly victimized.

This story is, in spite of all the breathless story-telling, is even LESS credible than the uncorroborated Ramirez vague recollections. First, the FBI knew of the allegation by Stiers and didn't find it credible enough to investigate. Democratic Senators also knew of the allegation by Stier's and in spite of their tireless efforts at exhuming dirt on Kavanaugh apparently also dismissed it as too flimsy to pursue. And Stier's refused to go public then or (apparently) now, and the alleged victim doesn't even remember any such thing happening.

That's the whole story...a bottom-feeding nothing burger that might have been mistaken as a super-market tabloid front-pager, competing with Martha Stewarts secret alien abduction and Bill Clinton's alleged love child with Nancy Pelosi.

Pathetic.

Thank you.