I read the New Yorker article. It seems pretty damning. I hope I’m wrong.
Give specifics as to how it is “damning.”
Be precise.
We have some real stupid people on Free Republic. This is shameful.
How is it damning?
You obviously didn’t go to prom.
Damning? Sounds made up & like a scene from Porky’s.
Paul Mirengoff over at Powerline points out what I and others here have been saying:
First, Ramirez says she was completely inebriated when the misconduct supposedly occurred.
Second, she told the New Yorker she wasn’t certain what happened until “after six days of talking with her attorney” a former elected Democrat. According to Farrow and Mayer, “in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, [Ramirez] was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” But one can do plenty of brain washing in six days.
We’ve all heard of the “MeToo” movement. Now we have the “MeToo, My Democrat Attorney Thinks” movement.
Third, Ramirez doesn’t even claim she saw Kavanaugh do anything; only that someone yelled out that Brett had done something.
Fourth, none of the other dozen people the New Yorker contacted said that Kavanaugh was even at the party where the misconduct allegedly occurred, let alone that misconduct actually occurred.
Fifth, multiple other students went on the record disputing that this happened.
Why is it that one or two women are to be believed but 35 or more women who have said Kavanaugh did not behave this way and one women dated him in high school are dismissed??
Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it is truth. The modus operandi of the American media...which, imho, is where the true collusion lies.
You did not read the article. If you had, there is no way you can claim it’s “pretty damning” for Kavanaugh.
The only person is damns is the second liar,
Do you believe everything you read from biased news sources? Are you new here or what?
Damning with faint praise and timid “I-hope-nots” I see.