Excellent defense, however... it also protects herself in the case of her claims being so unsubstantiated that she is placed at risk of slander or libel... By expressing doubts in her beliefs, she is protecting herself, and removes the perception of malice from herself.... a necessary ingredient in a charge of slander or libel...
I can give you the names of people who disagreed with her account of things based on their relationship with Kavanaugh and Ramirez: 1. Dino Ewing 2. Louisa Garry 3. Dan Murphy They claimed to be "the closest people to Brett Kavanaugh" during his Freshman year at Yale. If something would have happened, they would have heard about it.... One of the friends (perhaps not listed here), from my understanding, claimed that she was best friends with Deborah at the time and would've heard about it, if it actually happened... Yet, she didn't... This is all in that same New Yorker article you keep raving about... Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years So I ask again... Names, please of those that "heard about it at the time."
Total BS. Believe her or don’t but this is a hoot. Couldn’t get passed the first two reasons she doesn’t believe the accusation: 1. Feinstein 2. Soros Yup. You read that right. P a t h e t i c
Why can't you give me simple names... Maybe my reading comprehension skills are poor... But if you read the article, giving me the names of people who "heard about it at the time" should be easy for you, shouldn't it? EDIT: If you're talking about James Roche... That's one of the guys I mentioned that pretty much trusts Ramirez based on his relationship with her... And he seemed to only describe Kavanaugh as being "frequently intoxicated." Hardly "damning," as you suggested.... He simply trusts her based on her character, and doesn't trust Kavanaugh, apparently, due to his frequent inebriation...
But he only does it to drunk liberal democrat psychologists who can't remember what really happened to them.
Yes, you need to prove actual malice. However, she need not express doubts to spare herself from actual malice, and expressing doubts doesn't necessarily spare her from actual malice.
It certainly helps her case... if it ever came to that.... Suddenly, it's no longer a blatant lie... but an incident that she simply failed to have an accurate recollection, over... A completely justifiable explanation... however, certainly not concrete enough to "damn" Kavanaugh...
At least they reported the damaging elements to her allegations as well... Gives them some credibility in my book... It's just so obvious that they really want the allegations to be true, in spite of the fact that hardly anything substantial supports her testimony...
No eye witness to back up her story. That seems to be a trend with all this allegations against Kavanaugh.
How many sexual assaults occur with disinterested (e.g., people who themselves couldn't have been charged criminally) witnesses? So your statement should be more broad: that is a trend with all sexual assault allegations because of the nature of the crime.
It seems like they are trying to associate him with the behavior of Judge, who seems to be a playa. But yeah, if Kavanaugh was "riding the train" that should have corroboration. The interesting thing about that is the implication that people drinking and hooking up at parties is sexual assault because consent can not possibly given by someone that is impaired. If that's the new standard, then I (and anyone that's ever been in a fraternity) and probably half the people in Washington are disqualified from public service.
