Res Ipsa wrote:LOL. When a Democrat selectively releases information it’s a leak. When an R does it, it’s just setting the record straight. Got it.
Yeah, you “misspoke.” You breathlessly reported two things about the FBI investigative report that were flat ass wrong. And, not coincidentally, you misspoke in favor of your stated position. And it’s not the first time. You rush in here like a big ole puppy tripping over his big ole paws, yapping about the latest bone you’ve dug up on Fox or Breitbart or wherever. And when someone shows you that it’s a turd and not a bone, you don’t even pause. You just run back to WND or wherever and reappear with a new “bone.”
What’s on our plate isn’t a criminal investigation. It’s whether to give K a lifetime appointnent on the nation’s highest court. There is no reason on earth why the FBI couldn’t have interviewed the two parties, then followed up with interviewing potential corroborating witnesses. But I think they couldn’t for the same reason Graham threw his phony hissy fit— The Relief Society know that K lied to the committee under oath, but they won’t let a little thing like that rob them of a win.
Sometimes, for a moment, I forget where I am and think I'm talking to someone reasonable. Thanks for reminding me. Your description is a gross mischaracterization. Actually, I think I got my information from NPR. Though I could be wrong about that as I was riding with someone else. I didn't get anything of consequence wrong. Let's walk through it.
Thousand page report? Check
Interviewed Mark Judge for 3 hours? Check
Thoroughly interviewed numerous additional witnesses? Check
Thoroughly investigated allegations of both Ford and Ramirez? Check
What am I missing here?
I cited that some second-hand witness professor lead had been followed back to the first-hand source which turned out to be a dead end. That was totally true. Except it was misreported, or I misheard, and it was the New Yorker that ran that down.
In terms of the facts and the reporting, what did I get wrong? Nothing that I can tell. Allegations have been thoroughly investigated and found to be utter BS.
You guys have this schtick where you like to come at me with these ad hominems about "fox news" or "breitbart." Which is, one, false, and two, fallacious reasoning even if true. Humorously, if I had been citing Breitbart I wouldn't have gotten a word of it wrong. Their reporting on this has been thorough and impeccable. Unlike, say, CNN. What was their response to the news of the sworn statement submitted to the senate committee from Ford's ex boyfriend? Well, they ignored it for almost 24 hours, and then when they finally reported on it, it was a vicious propaganda apologetic piece that left out virtually every relevant detail while attempting to cast aspersions in his direction, oh, and they doxxed him. That's right, CNN plastered his name everywhere, activating liberal sleeper cells in his area to go harass him.
As for this leaking business. Give me a break. When the senate committee makes a concerted decision to release information and then does so through the proper channels, like publishing a document on the senate committee website, that's not called a leak. Name a single leak from Republicans. This is a disingenuous comparison to suggest normal business is nefarious. Democrats concealed information from Republicans. Democrats took private information and leaked it to media. And not just Ford's letter to Feinstein, but leaks from private interviews with Kavanaugh, the existence of other allegations that hadn't been made public, etc. What information did Republicans hide from Democrats on the committee? What private information did Republicans send to the media?
