That's stupid.ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:51 pm DC didn’t come out and say Ford’s memories were “invalid or shouldn’t carry weight,” but sure did cast a lot of doubt, and also imply she was the one who should be investigated?
DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:51 am Like I said, I'm up for an investigation. It just has to investigate the right people.
Up until last week, Ms. Ramirez couldn't even remember for sure if Brett Kavanaugh was at a party where something clearly traumatic happened to her. She admits to being blackout drunk and not remembering much else about the night in question. I'm not sure how one goes about investigating any of this, since -- as with Dr. Ford -- all of the witnesses named have denied any knowledge of events (in Ford's case, under penalty of perjury) and since the only corroborating "evidence" comes from an unnamed source who heard something sometime about someone. But if you have any ideas, you can certainly suggest them.
Otherwise this is patent partisan hackery.
I never said any such thing. In fact, I have a long post elsewhere in this thread about how she deserves the presumption that she is both honest and earnest.
Moreover, if you read the the posts just prior to the one you quote above, you'll see that the antecedent to "the right people" is "with [Ms. Ramirez's] lawyers and those from the Judiciary Committee who sought her out and suggested that she 'reassess' her memories."
as always, this is a much better forum when we argue with what people have actually said rather what we believe (often incorrectly) that they meant. The only thing I said here about Mrs. Ford is that the witnesses she has named have all denied that they were witnesses -- under penalty of perjury.
