Gillebrand is now on CNN/Cuomo saying the anonymous allegations...

[brush]

against Kavenaugh should be disregarded.

WTF?

[bettyellen]

1. They could be a bad distraction this week. We have corroborated statements- focus!

[brush]

7. My point is she didn't have that opinion about the anonymous allegations...

against Al Franken.

[bettyellen]

17. Al Franken, also a distraction this week. Let's not have the pity parties this particular week.

Let’s focus on a proper hearing and further investigation.

[brush]

21. Fair enough, but she of all people should not be talking about anonymous...

allegations.

[bettyellen]

31. Don't be baited off topic. It's all they'be been trying to do all week.

We have many credible collaborated witness statements. That is the focus.

[brush]

34. I'm not baited. Just the irony is so strong of her discounting anonymous sources...

I had to mention it. She should steer clear.

[bettyellen]

39. She's trying to get her fellow senators to focus on the concrete right now- you are not the audience

And invoking Franken is a mud puddle we do not need to rehash this week. I love him myself but no. Not now please.

[brush]

41. I get your point but you don't seem to get the irony of her and anonymous...

sources. Her of all people.

Most of us here can walk and chew gum at the same time so I will let it go.

[bettyellen]

45. I get it, but it's pointless- even harmful- to disrupt her working her fellow senators as she is

right now.

I have very mixed feelings about the Franken thing and I loved him. But I’m grateful he’s not on the judiciary committee right now- he would be a distraction we do not need. I hope he stages a comeback. After he clears his name. I’m not focusing on false allegations against men this week. None of us should give that any air.

[pangaia]

55. Betty, it's just a discussion board. Lotsa topics. Even Bruckner pops up from time to time.

[bettyellen]

63. Honestly, WRers troll here for anti Dem memes from Dem. many of us tweet too. This is exactly the

The kind of Dem infighting bullshit they amplify in ways we could never counter. He teeets it once, dozens of RWbots pick it up. And she’s doing the right thing right now- at a critical juncture. Let’s not stab her in the back.

[H2O Man]

53. 100% right.

Also, until fully reading the transcript of republican staff asking about it -- and reading quotes from the one letter -- one wouldn't understand that the information could lead to any good investigator identifying the others involved in the story.

[Kaleva]

2. They could be a set up

There's enough women who have come forward to take down Kavanaugh.

[guillaumeb]

3. She sang a different tune with Franken.

[Ferrets are Cool]

5. THIS

[rzemanfl]

9. She sings the song she thinks sounds best for her. I will never forgive her, although I SUPPORT

DEMOCRATS.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Does seem a bit contradictory.

[LenaBaby61]

26. Does seem a bit contradictory.

A bit?

[flibbitygiblets]

33. If it's Wednesday, Democrats are busy pulling the rug out from under each other

CAN WE FOCUS ON THIS KAVANAUGH GUY PLEASE? R's are dirty bastards definitely not above discrediting all accusers by tossing in a fake one.

[sheshe2]

36. She said the anonymous allegations...

The last two have yet to say their name. I believe Franken's were not anonymous, they were named.

Breaks my heart that Franken is gone.

[brush]

50. No, several were anonymous.

[brush]

54. Some anonymous, right? The first one, Tweeden wasn't but also proved to not be credible.

The irony of Gillebrand rejecting anonymous sources now is thick though.

But I'm done.

[Nevernose]

57. You ignore the allegations

3 named, 5 anonymous.

The three are apparently Republicans. One — the first — later admitted to fabricating part of her allegations, and the other part were demonstrably false,

Of the five anonymous accusations, they would be more credible if they didn’t fall apart on their face. One of the accusers (who ostensibly posted right here on DU) actually went on CNN and claimed that her didn’t gripe her inappropriately, but his squeeze “made her feel fat,”

Two of the other anonymous accusations were literally “he didn’t actually do anything, but I could tell he wanted to.” He secretly wanted to kiss me on stage. He secretly wanted me to kiss him at the Air America studio. Et cetera.

Some of the anonymous accusations were made simultaneously to bloggers at HuffPoand a blogger at Jezebel who has a history of not backing down on admittedly-fake rape accusations (reputable reporters refused to touch their stories). All this at a time when Roger Stone knew what was coming and the WaPo busted GOP plants trying to pass bogus stories about Roy Moore. (My point with this last bit isn’t that sexual assault accusations are often false, because they’re usually true, but these most of these particular allegations were made by anonymous sources to credulous-though-not-credible bloggers during a time when ACTUAL sexual predators like Roy Moore and half of Hollywood were getting busted ACTUALLY sexually assaulting women)

[guillaumeb]

67. And open accusations are treated more credibly?

What we are all seeing, where the accusers are put on trial by the GOP, is probably a huge reason that more potential accusers do not come forward.

[Iliyah]

4. GOP set up.

[john657]

6. One of them has already recanted.

Link to tweet

[Kaleva]

12. There's debate on if that recant is real.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

22. Having trouble following the shitstorm that serial rapist KKKavanaugh has left in his wake.

[brush]

13. What is that from?

[john657]

29. Accuser #5, the alleged rape on the ship in RI. n/t

[Nevilledog]

61. The accuser who allegedly beat up the rapists. Not the woman who was raped.

This is a tricky one. Details make you want to believe it's true, but the person making the allegation is not the woman. I would tread carefully with this one.

[john657]

62. I personally think it's a repub dirty trick to try to throw us

off track, you know, don't look here, look there.

[uponit7771]

64. +1

[Nevilledog]

66. It definitely has a different flavor.

[RockRaven]

8. If you treat anonymous accusations like the accusations with names, faces, and testimony sworn

under penalty of perjury, you weaken the strength of the latter. Keep them in separate baskets. Focus on the latter.

There is a reason the GOPers are the ones leaking out stories about anonymous accusations -- they want to conflate them with the anonymous ones and then use the anonymous ones as reason to dismiss/ignore ALL of the accusations.

[brush]

15. She didn't feel that way about the anonymous allegations against Franken.

See the difference now?

[john657]

30. +1000. N/T

[mythology]

47. And DUers didn't feel the same way about named allegations against Franken

The people calling Gillibrand a hypocrite did the exact same thing in reverse, blasting every named accuser for perceived sins. But that's different or something I guess.

[brush]

49. Not getting it. She of all people should avoid even talking about anonymous sources.

[manor321]

10. Because they are a set up!

Those allegations are a set up from Republicans! Check Twitter. We're learning more about these "allegations".

It is dirty tricks from Republicans! Don't fall for it!

[brush]

18. Missing the point. See her positon on anonymous allegations against Franken.

[gratuitous]

11. The non-anonymous allegations should be sufficient for a full and thorough investigation

If Sen. Gardner has the name of the anonymous letter writer of the 1998 incident, he should try to bring her forward. Until then, those allegations are Gardner's allegations.

[Dream Girl]

14. Fakes

[idcdu]

23. Coloradans (including myself) are waiting patiently until 2020

when Gardner gets a new tattoo of a boot on his ass.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. I think they need to be very careful with anonymous allegations,

especially since one of them apparently came through Corey Gardner's office. I just wish she'd been as careful with the anonymous allegations against Al Franken.

[FromTheAshes]

25. Franken's accusers were anonymous? I thought they were all named. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. No. Several were anonymous.

[C_U_L8R]

20. Smelling a Republican rat?

Or just not enough evidence?

[still_one]

24. She is absolutely right. Anonymous has absolutely no backing, and runs a very real risk of being a

GOP plant

[brush]

32. She finally figured that out. Too late for Al Franken though. See the difference?

[Blue_true]

42. The allegations that pushed her to demand that Franken resign came from three

strong democratic women, one an aide to a democratic congressman and two who were Democratic Party activists.

[still_one]

43. I don't know what her logic is, and while I agree that Al Franken was railroaded, Al choose for the

good of party unity not to fight it, however at this this time it doesn't do any good to rehash it, and I think the focus at this time should be on encouraging those in the Senate to vote the Kavanaugh nomination down, and focusing on the midterms.

After the midterms I guess we can go back to our usual circular firing squad

[brush]

44. I know what the focus is but she of all people should not be talking about...

anonymous sources.

[still_one]

46. I realize you know the score brush

[dem4decades]

35. I'd rather someone other than Gillebrand makes the case.

Any other Democrat really.

[smirkymonkey]

40. So would I. She doesn't have the best record on these kinds of thing.

Her involvement with the Franken "scandal" still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If I were her, I would just lie low.

[uponit7771]

65. +1

[njhoneybadger]

37. I've been drinking, this can't possibly be true

[njhoneybadger]

38. What else did she say?

[karynnj]

48. I agree - especially as there are three that are not anonymous

Why? We know nothing about the anonymous ones. They could end up being provably bogus. The problem is that that one will then be used to discredit the ones that are credible.

Remember Dan Rather and the National Guard. His story was detailed and thoroughly checked in many ways. However, he was passed a document that was later shown to have been a fake. (This even though the person who would have written it had a secretary who verified that the content was something that happened.) Clearly he was tricked by a Republican operative who may simply have retyped - on a new typewriter - the original. He was discredited.