Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 192: Manafort and a Storm

(+) Yeah! (+)

is everyone really just going to let "george w bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof
---

Eddv posted...

am saying it is unwise to continue hitching your wagon to accused sexual predators.

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.
---

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

it's been a long known and repeated opinion of sephyg
---

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george w bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

Unless you were born before 1866 I don't know how you'd say otherwise
---

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Ford is requesting a full FBI investigation into her claims before she subjects herself to a firing squad of Republican senators (people like Ulti and Seph), who already believe she's lying and want to shame her regardless of whether she's telling the truth or not. But I guess only rapists are given the benefit of the doubt.

You could literally apply this argument equally to Mark Judge if what you are saying is true. Why are you arguing out of both sides of your mouth? You can't argue this and then argue the reverse in relation to Judge.

Dude, that's my whole point. If they want to believe she's lying, then they should find it equally odd that Mark Judge doesn't want to testify, given that he's under just as much scrutiny as she is right now. I admit I'm more willing to take her side here, but it just seems fucked up that yet AGAIN, it's noted misogynist Ulti smearing a woman based on nothing, while ignoring the man doing the exact same thing as her.

Look at who you are talking to. They are extreme right. They believe anything with an R.

I am just saying, this also defeats your own argument if you wish to argue this to point out their own hypocrisy.

I think she has a valid reason to not want to testify. Judge might also have a valid reason to not want to testify, fair enough. But if you're going to take the stance that her hesitance to testify is indicative of outright lying, while simultaneously not finding fault with Judge's same reluctance, then that's a problem, and I'm gonna call it out.

I think both sides need to just cool it and wait til any actual evidence surfaces. If it exists, it shouldn't take more than a few days to surface. If not, he is to be considered innocent, and he should be confirmed. I get that it upsets people who do not want a conservative added to the supreme Court, but it is what it is. We can't punish those for allegations in which evidence doesn't exist to prove the person did the crime.

I mean, she has therapist notes confirming that she was recounting the event long before Kavanaugh was up for the Supreme Court, and she passed a lie detector test (which I admit that lie detectors are only like 60-70% effective, but it still seems like enough to warrant an investigation at the very least, rather than just rushing through an alleged rapist to take a spot on the Supreme Court). Meanwhile, you have Kavanaugh openly claiming he hadn't attended the party in question...before his accuser gave ANY details about the circumstances or setting behind the assault, which...LOOKS suspicious as a response.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

it's been a long known and repeated opinion of sephyg

it was corrik this time. i've long since learned to disregard anything sephg says. corrik is at the least not completely reprehensible about everything!

remember guys, women want you to force them into sex.
---

oh whoops I can't see those posts

wow there's 2 of them
---

Wait, W is greater than Reagan and Eisenhower now?
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

You mean the ones established under the Obama administration? Zero.

You guys have complete power now. Why are they still open?
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Eddv posted...

am saying it is unwise to continue hitching your wagon to accused sexual predators.

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE that a party nominating a confirmed pedophile, and electing a confessed sexual assaulter to the presidency, could POSSIBLY have any OTHER scumbags in it.
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

This is a job interview, not a trial. In case you forgot.

People don't get hired for jobs for all sorts of reasons all the time.
---

Kenri posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

You mean the ones established under the Obama administration? Zero.

You guys have complete power now. Why are they still open?

So you admit you're being a disingenuous dickhole?

And the answer is "Because they're following laws set by Congress years ago."
---

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george w bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

I mean, if you're a dedicated Republican born after Bush Sr left office, who else are you going to pick? Be glad he didn't say it about Trump!
---

Eddv posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

This is a job interview, not a trial. In case you forgot.

People don't get hired for jobs for all sorts of reasons all the time.

People shouldn't have their careers torpedoed over accusations with zero evidence either. But that's the culture the SJWs would like to create. It's utter social fascism.
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Eddv posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

This is a job interview, not a trial. In case you forgot.

People don't get hired for jobs for all sorts of reasons all the time.

People shouldn't have their careers torpedoed over accusations with zero evidence either. But that's the culture the SJWs would like to create. It's utter social fascism.

People shouldn't have their lives ruined by rapists raping them either, but yeah, false accusations are more damaging.
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

Inviso posted...

Ford is requesting a full FBI investigation into her claims before she subjects herself to a firing squad of Republican senators (people like Ulti and Seph), who already believe she's lying and want to shame her regardless of whether she's telling the truth or not. But I guess only rapists are given the benefit of the doubt.

You could literally apply this argument equally to Mark Judge if what you are saying is true. Why are you arguing out of both sides of your mouth? You can't argue this and then argue the reverse in relation to Judge.

Dude, that's my whole point. If they want to believe she's lying, then they should find it equally odd that Mark Judge doesn't want to testify, given that he's under just as much scrutiny as she is right now. I admit I'm more willing to take her side here, but it just seems fucked up that yet AGAIN, it's noted misogynist Ulti smearing a woman based on nothing, while ignoring the man doing the exact same thing as her.

Look at who you are talking to. They are extreme right. They believe anything with an R.

I am just saying, this also defeats your own argument if you wish to argue this to point out their own hypocrisy.

I think she has a valid reason to not want to testify. Judge might also have a valid reason to not want to testify, fair enough. But if you're going to take the stance that her hesitance to testify is indicative of outright lying, while simultaneously not finding fault with Judge's same reluctance, then that's a problem, and I'm gonna call it out.

I think both sides need to just cool it and wait til any actual evidence surfaces. If it exists, it shouldn't take more than a few days to surface. If not, he is to be considered innocent, and he should be confirmed. I get that it upsets people who do not want a conservative added to the supreme Court, but it is what it is. We can't punish those for allegations in which evidence doesn't exist to prove the person did the crime.

I mean, she has therapist notes confirming that she was recounting the event long before Kavanaugh was up for the Supreme Court, and she passed a lie detector test (which I admit that lie detectors are only like 60-70% effective, but it still seems like enough to warrant an investigation at the very least, rather than just rushing through an alleged rapist to take a spot on the Supreme Court). Meanwhile, you have Kavanaugh openly claiming he hadn't attended the party in question...before his accuser gave ANY details about the circumstances or setting behind the assault, which...LOOKS suspicious as a response.

I haven't read everything and also am not gonna lie not entirely mindful of all the details, but I thought even in the therapist notes it was said she was concerned because one day he could be one day named to the supreme Court?

Upon reading apparently Kavanaugh isn't named at all in the noted and the husband just says the name was said and the supreme Court thing.

"He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaughs name. She said during the session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court."
---

Inviso posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Eddv posted...

am saying it is unwise to continue hitching your wagon to accused sexual predators.

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE that a party nominating a confirmed pedophile, and electing a confessed sexual assaulter to the presidency, could POSSIBLY have any OTHER scumbags in it.

Moore and Trump (not to mention Bill Clinton) each have a lifetime of evidence that corroborates their sexual deviance. Kavanaugh has not one blemish otherwise. The situation is completely different.
---

pxlated posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

it's been a long known and repeated opinion of sephyg

it was corrik this time. i've long since learned to disregard anything sephg says. corrik is at the least not completely reprehensible about everything!

remember guys, women want you to force them into sex.

I have made it known I am a huge supporter of Bush for a very long time now. Why do you think I supported Jeb Bush in the primaries?
---

Inviso posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Eddv posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

This is a job interview, not a trial. In case you forgot.

People don't get hired for jobs for all sorts of reasons all the time.

People shouldn't have their careers torpedoed over accusations with zero evidence either. But that's the culture the SJWs would like to create. It's utter social fascism.

People shouldn't have their lives ruined by rapists raping them either, but yeah, false accusations are more damaging.

They literally are more damaging. A false rape accusation not only can ruin the life of the accused, but it can damage the credibility of actual rape victims. See: Duke lacrosse case, rolling Stone article, etc.

@ExThaNemesis
---

Inviso posted...

People shouldn't have their lives ruined by rapists raping them either, but yeah, false accusations are more damaging.

If all of society always believed them, false accusations would start happening often enough to be pretty damaging
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

social fascism.

LMFAO

You lose the argument.

Get the fuck out of here with that incel level nonsense.
---

Inviso, if I were to call the cops and accuse you of raping me, would you still insist that I should be believed? Why give the same credence to this woman?
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Kenri posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

You mean the ones established under the Obama administration? Zero.

You guys have complete power now. Why are they still open?

So you admit you're being a disingenuous dickhole?

And the answer is "Because they're following laws set by Congress years ago."

Wow as long as you guys are just following orders then I guess you can't be fascists, huh.

I'm sorry for being disingenuous. Revised question: how many kids have died due to your party's child internment camps? Like, say, immediately after being released. Be honest!
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Inviso posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Eddv posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

This is a job interview, not a trial. In case you forgot.

People don't get hired for jobs for all sorts of reasons all the time.

People shouldn't have their careers torpedoed over accusations with zero evidence either. But that's the culture the SJWs would like to create. It's utter social fascism.

People shouldn't have their lives ruined by rapists raping them either, but yeah, false accusations are more damaging.

They literally are more damaging. A false rape accusation not only can ruin the life of the accused, but it can damage the credibility of actual rape victims. See: Duke lacrosse case, rolling Stone article, etc.

Are false accusations a problem when they get traction? Yes, very much so. Are they more damaging than rape, even in individual cases (let alone on a societal level where rape happens more often)? Not in the mind of anyone who isn't a fucking moron
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Inviso posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Eddv posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

This is a job interview, not a trial. In case you forgot.

People don't get hired for jobs for all sorts of reasons all the time.

People shouldn't have their careers torpedoed over accusations with zero evidence either. But that's the culture the SJWs would like to create. It's utter social fascism.

People shouldn't have their lives ruined by rapists raping them either, but yeah, false accusations are more damaging.

They literally are more damaging. A false rape accusation not only can ruin the life of the accused, but it can damage the credibility of actual rape victims. See: Duke lacrosse case, rolling Stone article, etc.

@ExThaNemesis

Definitely not more damaging, but CAN be as damaging in some ways. Rape is a pretty big fucking deal in more ways than one. It up there with murder as basically the ultimate crime.
---

If that's a detail in the notes, Corrik, then it actually makes the accusation seem MORE credible. This is 2012, when Mitt Romney was running for president and Kavanaugh's name was floated as a potential Supreme Court nominee. If thirty years prior, Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her and she just wanted to push it to the back of her mind, it makes sense that that trigger would bring him back to the forefront. And this is 2012, LONG before Republicans started automatically believing that any sexual assault accusations (only against Republicans, mind you) were political hackery. That makes sense from a psychological perspective.
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Inviso, if I were to call the cops and accuse you of raping me, would you still insist that I should be believed? Why give the same credence to this woman?

Of course you wouldn't be believed, because unlike HER, you're full of shit and deliberately trying to make a political point, and you've admitted to it via this hypothetical. I give credence to her because there is no real reason for her to lie NOW (there's no political gain since your party GETS TO CONFIRM THE NOMINEE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S KAVANAUGH OR NOT), nor was there a reason for her to lie back in 2012, when Kavanaugh wasn't even fucking nominated for the Supreme Court at the time.
---

Inviso posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Inviso, if I were to call the cops and accuse you of raping me, would you still insist that I should be believed? Why give the same credence to this woman?

Of course you wouldn't be believed, because unlike HER, you're full of shit and deliberately trying to make a political point, and you've admitted to it via this hypothetical. I give credence to her because there is no real reason for her to lie NOW (there's no political gain since your party GETS TO CONFIRM THE NOMINEE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S KAVANAUGH OR NOT), nor was there a reason for her to lie back in 2012, when Kavanaugh wasn't even fucking nominated for the Supreme Court at the time.

So you won't presume innocence as long as the accuser has "no reason to lie."

I am so glad you are and will never be in any position of power.
---

Corrik posted...

I haven't read everything and also am not gonna lie not entirely mindful of all the details, but I thought even in the therapist notes it was said she was concerned because one day he could be one day named to the supreme Court?

Upon reading apparently Kavanaugh isn't named at all in the noted and the husband just says the name was said and the supreme Court thing.

"He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaughs name. She said during the session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court."

Even if she didnt use his name, the fact that she worried he would be appointed to the Supreme Court likely uniquely identifies him in a practical sense. I doubt there are any other people that are in the conversation for SCOTUS nominations that were two years older than her living in Bethesda, MD when she was 15.
---

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george w bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

It makes me wonder how young Corrik is

Even by Republican standards, Bush Sr and Reagan > W
---

redrocket posted...

Wait, W is greater than Reagan and Eisenhower now?

Okay, Corriks not THAT old
---

Corrik posted...

We can't punish those for allegations in which evidence doesn't exist to prove the person did the crime.

To call not getting to be on the Supreme Court a punishment implies that Kavanaugh would otherwise be entitled to be confirmed
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Inviso posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Inviso, if I were to call the cops and accuse you of raping me, would you still insist that I should be believed? Why give the same credence to this woman?

Of course you wouldn't be believed, because unlike HER, you're full of shit and deliberately trying to make a political point, and you've admitted to it via this hypothetical. I give credence to her because there is no real reason for her to lie NOW (there's no political gain since your party GETS TO CONFIRM THE NOMINEE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S KAVANAUGH OR NOT), nor was there a reason for her to lie back in 2012, when Kavanaugh wasn't even fucking nominated for the Supreme Court at the time.

So you won't presume innocence as long as the accuser has "no reason to lie."

I am so glad you are and will never be in any position of power.

Get this through your head: sexual assault is not murder, where one person is dead and there is a murderer to apprehend. Barring instances in which a rapist is caught in the act and has his crime reported, sexual assault is pretty much always a he-said/she-said scenario. And the problem with that is that presuming innocence on the part of the rapist means you are therefore accusing the accuser of a crime (filing a false police report and/or perjury). Which in turn means you're not affording THEM the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, because you've already deemed them guilty, in order to deem the accused to be innocent. Bringing up "innocent until proven guilty" is just a cop-out way of saying "I believe the accused rapist over the alleged victim, to the point where I'm willing to say SHE'S the real criminal."
---

Jakyl25 posted...

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george w bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

It makes me wonder how young Corrik is

Even by Republican standards, Bush Sr and Reagan > W

It's been 24 years since Bush Sr

If you don't consider it "in your lifetime" if you were too young to be aware of it, that could easily preclude both of those two even if you were born earlier. I was born in 1988 and I don't really think of Brian Mulroney as being Prime Minister of Canada "in my lifetime" even though he left office a couple months after Bush Sr because I wasn't quite five years old yet
---

Eddv posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

This is what the Dems will do from now into eternity though. They will accuse every single man in power of rape, because it is impossible to fully refute. If we let this shit go now, they will continue to weaponize it. That's not how the American justice system should work.

This is a job interview, not a trial. In case you forgot.

People don't get hired for jobs for all sorts of reasons all the time.

This is the part they seem to be struggling with.

Throw in the cringey uh, Robert Mueller? Who? charade/blatant lie during the committee hearing and can you really say he has the unimpugnable character of a person worthy of the Supreme Court?
---

Panthera posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george w bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

It makes me wonder how young Corrik is

Even by Republican standards, Bush Sr and Reagan > W

It's been 24 years since Bush Sr

If you don't consider it "in your lifetime" if you were too young to be aware of it, that could easily preclude both of those two even if you were born earlier. I was born in 1988 and I don't really think of Brian Mulroney as being Prime Minister of Canada "in my lifetime" even though he left office a couple months after Bush Sr because I wasn't quite five years old yet

I assume most people in these topics are older than that. I was born 20 days into Reagan term 1. Projection maybe!
---

Even with GameFAQs being an old crowd by video game standards, I'm pretty sure people over 30 aren't a significant majority here if they are one at all (probably aren't, really).
---

Also, this particular issue hits me hard, because as I've mentioned in the past, someone close to me was raped. She did EVERYTHING right in terms of going to the police immediately and allowing them to process her for evidence. But the incident happened in a private setting, and it was her word against his, and he claimed that she liked it rough to explain the physical damage done. And he got away with it. So it pisses me off whenever people like Sephy or Ulti love to claim that women just make false claims all the time and they're more damaging to men's reputations than actually being raped is.

Your "innocent until proven guilty" in a he-said/she-said scenario is why the burden of proof is SO high in sexual assault cases. And I'd say the fact that only six out of a thousand rapists actually serve jail time for their crime speaks volumes about just how little of a threat false accusations ACTUALLY are towards men. It just happens that occasionally you get a high profile false accusation like the Duke lacrosse team, that guys like you use to prove that you're the REAL victims in society.
---

And all you guys gotta know dealing with Seph here is that if Mitch McConnell did what hes accusing the Democrats of, he would call it the act of a political genius
---

The really gross takes are the ones that go even if he did try to rape her, he was only 17 so what does it really matter anyway?
---

This thread moves too fast. :(

Eddv posted...

I am taking his guilt or innocence out of the equation.

Keep in mind this is me you're talking to - I could give a shit if he did it or not. I know Trump will be naming this judge to the court either way. I am simply talking about what I see as an incredible unforced error by the Rs.

I am saying it is unwise to continue hitching your wagon to accused sexual predators. It is most unwise to do so while not even pretending to be phased by it. Especially when we are in an environment where people are caring more and more about this.

Maybe you perform a full investigation and he is completely exonerated and this all works out.

But why risk it? Why drag it out? Just nominate the other guy. People will praise you for taking the issue of the day seriously and you lose basically NOTHING.

My guess here (along with every other post that he's personally involved with filling) is that Trump believes that he's found someone whose loyalty can be had as long as the price is right. While that's a quality that he should be able to find in someone without sexual assault allegations levied against them, having to restart the process with a new candidate is (in his eyes) the only risk here that's truly intolerable. It's a coarse theory, but it matches up with my understanding of the man Trump is and it also ties in very nicely to the concerns surrounding Kavanaugh's finances.

As far as the rest of the Republicans are concerned, the only priority is to get a nominee through before midterms, which at this point almost certainly requires them to roll with what they've got.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

redrocket posted...

Wait, W is greater than Reagan and Eisenhower now?

Okay, Corriks not THAT old

That was actually in response to something Sephy posted:

HarrietTubgirl posted...

pxlated posted...

is everyone really just going to let "george w bush is the best president of my lifetime" go ignored?

oof

Unless you were born before 1866 I don't know how you'd say otherwise

---

Oh lol
---

Supporting the investigation of a crime is not the same thing as declaring the one accused of the crime of being guilty.

"Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean "innocent unless damning evidences spontaneously materializes in the laps of the public from out of the ether". The way the system works is that when there's a possibility someone committed a crime, you search for more information to uncover the truth of the matter, and then decide whether they're innocent or guilty. You don't just immediately cover your eyes and then shout "well I haven't seen any evidence yet so we can't say that they're guilty!"
---

Inviso posted...

Your "innocent until proven guilty" in a he-said/she-said scenario is why the burden of proof is SO high in sexual assault cases

So what standard do you want to replace the presumption of innocence with?
---

Christ.

Just when I can't imagine our right wing shitstains getting any lower.
---

Panthera posted...

Inviso posted...

Your "innocent until proven guilty" in a he-said/she-said scenario is why the burden of proof is SO high in sexual assault cases

So what standard do you want to replace the presumption of innocence with?

I don't know. I really don't. But it's fucked up that the system is currently set up in such a way that an accused rapist is presumed innocent, but given the very nature of the crime, in order for him to BE innocent, the accuser must therefore be lying by default.
---

Inviso posted...

in order for him to BE innocent, the accuser must therefore be lying by default.

Which is in and of itself a crime, to which logically the accuser is also innocent of until proven guilty

But no one ever seems to take that stance.
---

Inviso posted...

given the very nature of the crime, in order for him to BE innocent, the accuser must therefore be lying by default.

Isn't this just the nature of crime in general?

In any case I don't really see this as a problem; I see it as the justice system working successfully, and I think lowering the standard for conviction just because certain crimes are harder to prove is a very, very bad idea.

I will point out that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean "this person did not commit this crime". It means "there is not enough evidence to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person did commit this crime".
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik posted...

I haven't read everything and also am not gonna lie not entirely mindful of all the details, but I thought even in the therapist notes it was said she was concerned because one day he could be one day named to the supreme Court?

Upon reading apparently Kavanaugh isn't named at all in the noted and the husband just says the name was said and the supreme Court thing.

"He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaughs name. She said during the session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court."

Even if she didnt use his name, the fact that she worried he would be appointed to the Supreme Court likely uniquely identifies him in a practical sense. I doubt there are any other people that are in the conversation for SCOTUS nominations that were two years older than her living in Bethesda, MD when she was 15.

That isn't in the notes either. That is just something her husband says was part of it along with the name. Why wouldn't either have been noted by the notes? That is what I am asking.

I am even asserting is there a possibility here that this meeting did not refer to Kavanaugh in any way and her husband is adding credibility to her claim by saying it was about him? I just don't get why the notes neither reference the name or the supreme Court fear. And only the husband seems to add this.

I am just looking at it critically.

That said, it still goes down to what evidence there is. This isn't evidence of a crime. This is just possible evidence that this timing didn't spur this allegation.
---