I watched a few minutes from both: 20 minutes from Ford; 5 minutes from Kavanaugh, as well as multiple clips. I plan to watch the whole hearing, but below are my first impressions.
You didn't watch anything then.
>I was shocked at how smug, arrogant and entitled Kavanaugh appeared. He showed anger and I thought his attack on
>Democrats was too political since it came from what should be an impartial judge. He also talked over the senators instead o
>of allowing them to finish their questions.
watch it for real. You'l note the senators kept cutting him off when he wasn't answering the way they were expecting.
> Personally, I think his appearance will hurt him because of his anger and disrespectful tone. He should have toned it down.
He'll still be appointed regardless of his appearence or your or any leftist's opinion.
> Polls should be interesting.
They'll be split in the middle and correspond to everyones political leanings rather then the hearing at all.
> Who do you think was more credible? Opinions?
kavanaugh seemed more credible just on the fact that this allegation came out 35 years plus. This to me just sounds like a histrionic #MeToo fabrication. I'm sorry I just don't believe her. Even the story of wanting a second front door due to being traumatized by the non rape event sounds manipulative which supposedly is what caused her to bring up the tramatic grouping story during counseling. To me it sounds like she was horse playing with some boys and used kavanaugh's name as an actor in her dramatization of the narritive.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
"I'm sorry I just don't believe her."
Yeah but you already had your mind made up about that days ago and said so in this forum. So this is no big revelation.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
And her testimony did nothing to help and actually made her seem less credible. Don't act like I'm incapable of being impartial.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
If you're capable of being impartial you wouldn't be insisting she was lying because it doesn't make the least bit of sense that she's lying. See my post two down.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
I think you incapable of being impartial. Women have lied about sexual assault before in high profile cases. And an attempt to keep a conservative off the supreme court has already happened in our recent history via a sexual misconduct accusation by another college professor no less. We've seen this story before.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
Again, I'm talking about empirical evidence and facts in this case. You are not.
I laid out how she first shared this story with her therapist and husband in 2012 in contemporaneous notes that the therapist wrote down.
So how does that make your idea that she's deliberately lying even coherent?
When you ignore such clear evidence that contradicts your narrative, it means you're not capable of being impartial here.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
You clam to have empiracal evidence that kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford? Sounds more like you only have Fords words from 2012 which Is insufficient to prove anything.
So how does that make your idea that she's deliberately lying even coherent?
When you ignore such clear evidence that contradicts your narrative, it means you're not capable of being impartial here.
And you think thats clear evidence? Whats wrong with your brain already. You think word of mouth that was never mentioned to anyone prior to 2012 is clear and proven evidence because??? And words that were only mentioned due to a manipulative attempt add another front door to a house when she and her husband got into an argument about it?
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
Empirical evidence is the therapist notes in possession of the Washington Post where she published her original op-ed. They would have done due diligence by verifying with the therapist that the notes were legit and taken during therapy sessions to verify her story.
Jesus this is what I'm talking about, you're clearly not impartial when you try so hard to deny the existence of empirical evidence that everyone acknowledges is legit.
It's why no one, not even Republicans including Kavanaugh claims as you do that she's lying. They only say they think it's a case of mistaken identity.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
Empirical evidence is the therapist notes in possession of the Washington Post where she published her original op-ed. They would have done due diligence by verifying with the therapist that the notes were legit and taken during therapy sessions to verify her story.
Jesus this is what I'm talking about, you're clearly not impartial when you try so hard to deny the existence of empirical evidence that everyone acknowledges is legit.[/quote]
So you have a record that Dr Ford may have or may not have fabricated this story way back in 2012. That doesn't add legitimacyany to her story. If she had said this back in the 1980s somewhere maby but 2012?
[quote]
It's why no one, not even Republicans including Kavanaugh claims as you do that she's lying. They only say they think it's a case of mistaken identity.
Of course they won't dare too cause the "How dare you accuse a victim of lying" leftists like you will come out attacking in full swing like you are now. People can and often do lie to achieve their goals. Republicans democrats sinners and saints. They all believe she's lying. Kavanaugh's just wondering why ford inserted his name into the story. Its like your pretending to be ignorant of the possibility of lying.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
So let me get this straight, are you really trying to say with a straight face that she made up this story to her therapist in 2012 just on the off chance Kavanaugh might be nominated to the Supreme Court so she could destroy her life by going public and accusing him?
And at the same time you're insisting you're capable of being impartial?
That is truly some funny shit.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
So let me get this straight you think that a story that was sat on at least to 2012 and again up untill the last second of a nomination process coulden't possibly be a lie? And at the same time your insisting your capable and are acting impartially? Nothing about her story is confirmable she doesn't even remember the date of what is allegedly the most traumatic event of her life is and so traumatic its brought up as the reason she wants to have a second front door in her house so she can flee if she is "attacked" again. The burdan of proof is always on the accuser to prove a positive event happened not the other way around. I'm am always skeptical and you should be too when any one just makes a positive accusation against some one else. You on the other hand are pretending its not even possible for her to have a motive in lying. Like really wtf dude?
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/accuser-s-schoolmate-says-she-recalls-hearing-alleged-kavanaugh-incident-n911111
It wasn't "sat on". There are classmates who heard of the incident at the time that Republicans refused to interview. This is why there was a need for a FBI investigation.
I still don't get your logic, so let me ask you again.
Are you really trying to say with a straight face that she made up this story to her therapist and husband in 2012 just on the off chance Kavanaugh might be nominated to the Supreme Court so she could destroy her life by going public and accusing him?
It's a simple question, why won't you answer it?
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
There are classmates who heard of the incident at the time that Republicans refused to interview. [/quote]
there is no evidence of that Just fords words. Also kavanaugh wasn't mentioned in the therapists notes either so.
[quote]
Are you really trying to say with a straight face that she made up this story to her therapist and husband in 2012 just on the off chance Kavanaugh might be nominated to the Supreme Court so she could destroy her life by going public and accusing him?
It's a simple question, why won't you answer it?
I said nothing as to what her motives are what I am saying she's most likely lying. And I reject the notion that her life is destroyed. She will always be regarded as a victim that needs support. So your compound question is already leading which isn't suprising to me either. I've answered your real question so many ways. What I reject is your assertion that its some how not possible for ford to be lying and that some how I'm implying this is a conspiracy which is really what your baiting for. All I said and said clearly is that I believe Ford is lying. That's the simplest answer I can give to your bizarely worded compound question. And I'll also add that the reports I've seen indicate she didn't name kavanaugh to her therapist. She only relayed that she was sexually assaulted.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
Except in order to make a credible accusation that someone is lying you need to lay out a plausible motive.
You have not done so.
I've also pointed out that in order for her to be lying, she would have to be lying to her therapist in 2012 in private therapy sessions with her husband. You have not even attempted to explain why she would do that on the off chance that Kavanaugh might be nominated by a Republican president at some point in the future. Do you have any idea how remote that possibility would have seemed like in 2012? Kavanaugh wasn't even a finalist on McConnell's shortlist. Trump just picked him because he liked him.
I'm happy to entertain the possibility someone is lying but only if it makes sense. None of the above is even in the realm of the world of common sense and logic. That's what makes your assertion certifiably crazy.
And if you were getting death threats, your email hacked, false info spread about you, and where you and your family had to move out of your house and hire armed guards to protect you like Ford made clear in her testimony, your "rejection" that her life hasn't been destroyed is also certifiably nuts.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
You forget to notice that I'm not the one making the positive claim your ommenting the fact that your now trying to prove a double negative which becomes a positive accusation all over again.
I'm denying the assault happened thats a negative claim. Ford is making a positive claim so the burden of proof is on her. And as I said the reports I've seen say that kavanaugh isn't named in the therapist's notes. I contend that Dr Ford is being histrionic and that is her motive. And even at that my point is no one has to prove she's lying. Its the other way around it needs to be proven she's telling the truth. But some how you got that backwards.
Your not qualified to call or suggest anything is certifiably crazy/nuts or nuts as you've only made assertions and offered no proof. You are truly bizare in your insistence that Ford has no in your words no motive to lie is some how an logical invariant.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
Except I already cited an article pointing out that there were classmates at the time that heard the gossip of Kavenaugh assaulting Ford that Republicans are refusing to investigate.
In the real world we live in that's what is known as "corroborating evidence" that Ford believed Kavanaugh to be the perpetrator at the time it happened.
That blows apart your little conspiracy theory that Ford didn't have Kavenaugh in mind when she spoke of her assault to her therapist, even if you want to discount the fact that her husband has publicly said she told him at the time it was Kavenaugh.
You're also ignoring the fact that order to make a credible accusation that someone is lying you need to lay out a plausible incentive. People just don't behave randomly. This is a credibility contest between Ford and Kavenaugh and one of them is lying. The empirical facts are that Kavenaugh has far greater incentive to lie. This is indisputable. He has a chance to sit on the Supreme Court if he lies. What would be her incentive for lying? To get death threats, labeled a liar, and having to move her and her family for safety concerns?
The fact you would accuse her of lying, refuse to provide a plausible motive, while not even considering how he has far greater incentive to lie all while calling yourself "impartial" is why I'm saying you're nuts.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
That blows apart your little conspiracy theory that Ford didn't have Kavenaugh in mind when she spoke of her assault to her therapist, even if you want to discount the fact that her husband has publicly said she told him at the time it was Kavenaugh.
[/quote]
never had a conspiracy theory. And Ford admitted herself that she didn't even tell her husband til 2012 so the notion that ford told her husband early on doesn't make sense.
[quote]
The empirical facts are that Kavenaugh has far greater incentive to lie. This is indisputable.[/quote]
No kavenaugh just has more to loose. No your trying to quantify motives as your evidence?
[quote]
The fact you would accuse her of lying, refuse to provide a plausible motive, while not even considering how he has far greater incentive to lie all while calling yourself "impartial" is why I'm saying you're nuts.
The fact that you are using so many logical fallacies in your attempts to assert Ford can't possibly be lying shows why your crazy. And while I feel compelled to defend logical arguments and defend against fools who continue to argue with no basis in logic this is going on ad nauseam. There is good reason to be skeptical of accusations and even better reasons why the burden of proof is on the accuser making the positive claims (I don't think you even know what that means actually) I am getting tired of arguing with you ad nauseam on the tenants of logical arguments. You have habbit of resorting to insults leads me to suspect your not capable of critical thinking. All the evidence you submitted is hearsay of an event that took place in 1982. I can't help you with that nor should I be expected too.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
I'm not asserting she can't be possibly lying. I'm using logic to demonstrate why your contention that she is lying is highly implausible. You're the one asserting she's lying, not me.
Big difference.
You fail to even offer a plausible motive! Again, motives matter. It's why the point of any criminal trial is to first establish motive, because it also establishes a reason for why the perp committed the crime. You assert that she's lying but can't even provide a plausible reason why she would. Meanwhile what I am asserting is that Kavenaugh is lying, and unlike you I can provide plenty of reasons why Kavenaugh might be lying.
So between the two of us, I'm the one deploying logic and reason here. You're not even attempting to be reasonable, that's why I'm saying you're nuts.
If you were a prosecutor you'd be laughed right out of the courtroom when you can't and won't even provide a motive. This should be the most basic and elementary thing you'd need to establish before concluding she is lying.
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
"I said nothing as to what her motives are what I am saying she's most likely lying."
This is why you will never come close to being impartial. False accusations are only around 3% of reports.
In order for most victims of rape to come forward, they need a support system. Ford didn't have that for the longest time, though she did have it with her therapist in 2012. Now that Kavanaugh is being appointed, her support system has greatly increased because we now have an entire political party willing to listen to her. It does not matter if they are listening merely for political reasons. When support for a victim increases, it does not increase the chance the victim is lying. It actually decreases that chance further.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
This is why you will never come close to being impartial. False accusations are only around 3% of reports.
I call bullshit on your statistics. You woulden;t know that and being the conviction rate is so low for rape cases I fail to see how could possibly arrive at that conclusion. Your the one being impartial.
"When support for a victim increases, it does not increase the chance the victim is lying. It actually decreases that chance further."
Who ever said that or made any statements about the odds of a person telling the truth or not. I actually advocate support system is totally orthognal the probability a rape claim made is truthful or not.
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
It's very simple. You examine the percentage of accusations that were proven to be false, and you compare it with the percentage of accusations that were proven to be true. This is how the FBI determines the "unfounded" percentage for all crimes. Rape falls in line with a similar percentage of false crime charges such as robbery, and floats between 2% and 8% of those crimes being falsely reported.
If you don't know if a person is lying or telling the truth, and there's no evidence for you to weigh, then the amount of people on their side can be an indicator. Ford has people on her side, whereas Kavanaugh has people saying "innocent until proven guilty" which is what you say when you're on the fence.
There's nothing wrong with being on the fence, but when you say "what I am saying she's most likely lying" you are very clearly not on the fence. Kavanaugh doesn't even believe she is lying. He believes she was raped, and so does a good portion of the GOP. So I have to ask, what caused you to take the automatic stance that she is lying? Very simple. It's partisan bias.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
It's very simple. You examine the percentage of accusations that were proven to be false, and you compare it with the percentage of accusations that were proven to be true. This is how the FBI determines the "unfounded" percentage for all crimes. Rape falls in line with a similar percentage of false crime charges such as robbery, and floats between 2% and 8% of those crimes being falsely reported.
Your saying we have a conviction rate of 92% to 98%? Thats just not true. Are you sure your not thinking of the appeals overturn rate? which is around 2% to 8%?
"So I have to ask, what caused you to take the automatic stance that she is lying?"
Prior knowledge of females lying abut being raped. At least 2 high profile cases and 1 case in real life. I mentioned in an earlier post.
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
"Your saying we have a conviction rate of 92% to 98%?"
No. I'm saying we have evidence of rape in roughly 97% of cases that have a conclusion. We cannot count cases that have no conclusion, and so they aren't included in the statistic. Conviction is a whole other animal. It requires not only evidence of a rape, but the ability to know who it was which can sometimes be impossible. To shift it over to convictions almost seems like intentional dishonesty on your part.
"Prior knowledge of females lying abut being raped. At least 2 high profile cases and 1 case in real life. I mentioned in an earlier post."
Three cases? Good lord. Your mind obviously gravitates towards cases involving false accusers, which is why there are only three... women... I'm guessing? Tell me, how many false accusations were there against Bill Cosby?
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
Three cases? Good lord. Your mind obviously gravitates towards cases involving false accusers, which is why there are only three... women... I'm guessing? Tell me, how many false accusations were there against Bill Cosby?
Due to the serious nature of the crime I have to consider the possibility that the alleged victims could be lying. IIn cosby's case I'm sure plenty were telling the truth and I'm sure there were some that wern't as well. And I'm not saying 3 cases is all their was I'm saying in the three cases I focused my attention on. So for me the truth to lying hit rate is pretty low. I come from a world were assault cases in general are dismissed due to lack of evidence. The cops won't even give me the time of day even when I have witness that say the assailant was at my house. Perhaps the cops just suck in this area I don't know but when they ask for dates of events and I can't give them those details they treat me like I'm wasting their time. I have no doubt the beliefs every one has about this case goes right down political lines. At least now we have an FBI investigation going on but I doubt they will bring anything conclusive. What happens after the investigation another hearing?
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
"IIn cosby's case I'm sure plenty were telling the truth and I'm sure there were some that wern't as well."
Of those that were investigated and concluded, which ones weren't telling the truth? Just answer the damn question.
We have evidence of Kavanaugh lying under oath here by misrepresenting what a "Devil's Triangle" is. However, we have no polygraph from Kavanaugh.
We have no evidence of Ford lying in the hearing. Also, we have a polygraph test that reveals no deception.
But to you, Ford is lying and Kavanaugh is telling the truth.
crc32, you are a disgraceful piece of garbage.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
Of those that were investigated and concluded, which ones weren't telling the truth? Just answer the damn question.
Excuse me asshat I took that question as being rhetorical, but you can go fuck your self if you think I'm compelled to entertain these types of questions to illicit me to attempt to quantify an unknowable Quantity.
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
Lol. You're just another snowflake who withers at the first sign of your own argument falling to pieces.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
Fuck you. you just failed when you tried to call me garbage. I don't value your lapse in judgment and lack of logic. Your done. I won't engage in a non rational debate with you nor am I required to. Your done just like your agenda of keeping an innocent man off the bench is done. Just deal with the fact that there will be more conservatives moving into the supreme court. There is nothing you can do about it. Out of fairness I will tell you I'm ignoring the remainder of your insulting comments. Your not entitled to a discussion with me.
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
You didn't even address those topics where I called you garbage. You ignored them while pretending to be upset at my question regarding Cosby's accusers.
Of course you're going to ignore me. You hit a brick wall, which was inevitable based on your extremely lacking argument and impartial narrative.
reply
share
snepts (11123)
6 years ago
" The burdan of proof"? Hey, I'm not a stickler for grammar, but Burdan?
And I can't remember the date when I had sex for the first time, but I remember when I had sex for the first time.
And what would be her motive for lying?
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
I remember the day I got carjacked and had to return fire to save my life. People remember the dates of traumatic events to a T. that clearly shape our lives and allegedly shaped the life of Ford. I can also remember the month and year of my first sexual encounter. I also remember it was on a thursday between 2 and 5pm after I walked 3 miles down the rail road tracks to get to her house(She went to a different school district). I remember because it was the first month of summer after my freshmen year. Has Ford even narrowed it down that far? I'm also 40 years old and will not likely forget those details. I hear reports that the party happened during the summer yet ford also claims people were talking about it the next day in school.
I have also personally known one woman that have lied about aggressive sexual encounters in some shape or form. For example I knew a girl in college that claimed a guy I knew had date raped her (no details she wouldn't get into it and I remember the story sounded odd) but later on after the alleged rape she and that guy started seeing each other as boyfriend and girlfriend when I asked her about it she seemed surprised that I knew about the alleged rape as if she didn't even remember telling me about it. Then she when she could not convince me we never had that conversation she then preceded to try to convince me she was talking about some other guy. So I don't believe her either cause she's not telling the truth about something.
Memories of the false kobe bryant and duke lacrosse rape case come to mind. What would have been their motives for lying cause clearly they were? Kobe Bryant's accuser had the wrong guys semon on her underwear and the lacrosse accuser named lacrosse members that were not even at the party she claims to have been gang raped at. So yea I'm a little skeptical when a woman comes forward about events that happened in 1982 around the same time the American videogame market was crashing and The thing and E.T. were playing in the movies and ronald regan was serving his first term as president and comes forward with allegations she knows is danm near impossible to verify from that far back.
reply
share
Keelai (31991)
6 years ago
I watched enough to have an initial impression. My opinion so far is based on their behavior, attitude, body language, how they responded and some of their answers. His outbursts and bias against liberals/left alone makes him unqualified to be a judge. He's too emotional and high strung.
He already stated that he believed she was telling the truth. His disagreement is that it wasn't him. That part doesn't make sense to me because she knew her attackers well enough to know their names. She also mentioned him by name years ago to a counselor. That counselor may have a written record which should have been entered into evidence. He also admits too drinking too much beer, even presently. A heavy drinker/alcoholism also disqualifies him. An FBI investigation makes the most sense at this point.
Personally, I don't believe he'll get the votes because of the way he came across today. I thought he would be smarter and show more humility. It's a job interview, not an entitlement.
It appears that the Republicans decided to play party politics in the afternoon instead of following through by having that woman prosecutor continue her questioning. The change in methods sounds like an act of desperation.
There are Independents who don't belong to either party and are the ones who decide elections.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
Anyone who thinks she is lying is completely off their rocker in my opinion. That would have to mean Ford is lying to keep him off the court and is willing to destroy her life in the process. Furthermore, it would imply she's been preparing the ground for this accusation for years, just in case he was ever nominated to the court, seeing how she first mentioned Kavanaugh by name in therapy sessions with her husband to save her marriage in 2012 and for which her therapist has contemporaneous notes taken from that time.
Whoever would believe that is absolutely loony tunes. That's an Alex Jones level craziness.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
He already stated that he believed she was telling the truth. His disagreement is that it wasn't him. That part doesn't make sense to me because she knew her attackers well enough to know their names.
I'm of the same opinion he has. Something happened to ford but for some reason she's being histrionic and choose to put his name in the narrative.
> An FBI investigation makes the most sense at this point.
And nothing is stopping that. Its not kavanaugh decision to start or stop an FBI investigation. What ever one is objecting to is that the the democrats are asking kavanaugh to step down pending a lengthy FBI investigation.
>It appears that the Republicans decided to play party politics in the afternoon instead of following through by having that
>woman prosecutor continue her questioning. The change in methods sounds like an act of desperation.
That's amazing. That's exactly what republicans think democrates are doing. Playing party politics and acting in desperation.
Beliving a person is innocent until proven guilty is not off their rocks. And I assure you Ford will recieve no reprocussions for her accusations against kavanaugh.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
dont you think that if you got raped by someone you knew at a party that the name would be burned into your memory?? It not like she's trying to remember what brand of beer she was drinking!
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
I never said she doesn't remember who attacked her. All I'm saying is she kept the story and switched names of the attacker. I knew a girl in college who told me she was date raped by some guy only for her to be going out with that same guy a few weeks later with her trying to convince me I misunderstood who she was talking about. Now I don't believe anything she tells me as she's been caught in other lies so I have no reason to believe she was ever raped to begin with now. Its what histrionic woman do and my exposure to these woman in my past have led me to really question accusations made.
Is ford trying to keep the story alive while she protects the name of the actual attacker? Is she being histrionic? Is this just a ploy to keep a conservative off the bench? I don't know I just don't believe she's being truthful. If she's telling the truth I'm really disappointed that she waited 35 years for all possible evidence to dry up.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
I never said she doesn't remember who attacked her. All I'm saying is she kept the story and switched names of the attacker.
There is a lot of he said/she said but I look at other things such as Ford's sworn statement that Kavanaugh friend and classmate Mark Judge was present in the room when the incident took place. Ford wants Judge to testify while Kavanaugh does not seem to want this. Ford also wants the FBI to investigate but Kavanaugh does not seem to want this.
If the claims that Ford are making are untrue, wouldn't Kavanaugh want Judge to testify under oath to this?
If the claims that Ford are making were untrue, wouldn't Judge want to testify under oath to help clear his friend's name?
If the claims that Ford are making are untrue, wouldn't Kavanaugh want the FBI involved since lying to an FBI agent is a crime?
If the claims that Ford are making are untrue, wouldn't she want to avoid an FBI investigation?
The answers to these questions don't paint a good picture for Kavanaugh.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
If the claims that Ford are making are untrue, wouldn't Kavanaugh want Judge to testify under oath to this?
If the claims that Ford are making were untrue, wouldn't Judge want to testify under oath to help clear his friend's name?
If the claims that Ford are making are untrue, wouldn't Kavanaugh want the FBI involved since lying to an FBI agent is a crime?
Where is kavanaugh refusing to testify under oath and where is kavanaugh making the decision to not allow an FBi investigation.
"If the claims that Ford are making are untrue, wouldn't she want to avoid an FBI investigation?"
You'd think she'd start by fileing a police report or press charges or something. Your also mistaken as both ford and kavanaugh were sworn in during the hearing.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
I didn't say Kavanaugh was refusing to testify under oath. I said Mark Judge who Ford named as a witness to the event isn't willing to testify under oath and Kavanaugh doesn't seem to want him to.
And I didn't say Kavanaugh was making the decision for the FBI to investigate. I said Ford was requesting an FBI investigation and Kavanaugh didn't seem to want this. Why would Ford want an FBI investigation if she is lying? Why wouldn't Kavanaugh want and FBI investigation if he wasn't lying?
A police report would be useless as any statute of limitations has since expired. This isn't a criminal proceeding, just a glorified job interview where personal integrity is an important deciding factor. Should the events of 35 years ago play a part in shaping the decision on whether he is confirmed or not? I have no idea. Of the two, who do I find to be more credible based on what I mention above? Without a doubt Ford.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
A police report would be useless as any statute of limitations has since expired
It was stated in the hearing that there was no statute of limitations for sexual assault in the local area the incident happened in.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
Oh that's interesting. I'm not sure her filing a police report is the course of action that Kavanaugh would prefer she take but interesting it's even an option.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
I was under the impression that is the first step in starting an investigation of anykind. In my conversations with the police they seem to not even be interested in investigating anything unless some one is pressing charges which Dr Ford seems uninterested in doing.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
I've been lurking and reading this thread. These have been the most logical well-thought observations advanced so far.
I'm not up to speed on developments with respect to Judge and FBI involvement, but, if your descriptions are accurate, this line of thought would certainly give the weight of credibility to Ford.
reply
share
Burk48917 (10998)
6 years ago
Only because you want to see it that way you biased and sad little troll.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
Fascinating stuff there. Thanks for stopping by...
reply
share
Burk48917 (10998)
6 years ago
Lol, only a fool or partisan would think Ford has any credibility based on what has come to light so far. Which are you?
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
Like those liberal bastards over at Fox News
https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/fox-news-panel-deems-dr-blasey-fords
"Extremely emotional, extremely raw, and extremely credible," Chris Wallace said with regard to her testimony.
"Nobody could listen to her deliver those words and talk about the assault and the impact it has had on her life and not have your heart go out to her," he continued.
After observing that there was no question she had been traumatized, Wallace pronounced the format to be a "disaster for Republicans," observing that by handing over questioning to a prosecutor they had taken away their ability to question her in a more effective way.
reply
share
kspkap (13055)
6 years ago
@ Burk My two cents:
The interview with the reporter showed him to be docile, so he faught back as most of us would do if falsely accused. All of those who witnessed her testimony yesterday believe something did happen to her but....it was not perpetrated by the judge. There is NO evidence it was done by the judge. It wouldn’t make it to a court of law...no evidence to where and when. A warrant would never be issued. He’s been through 6-7 FBI background checks back to the 8th grade...zilch evidence. What would the FBI investigate? Where and who would the FBI investigate? Oh, already done. Delay, delay, delay!
The Dems had ample time from receiving the letter to request yet another FBI check...they didn’t. Their tactic was to delay and destroy a decent man. This Senate committee is the investigating group. He’s a man...she a woman...so he’s guilty. I watched most of the hearing and most of the Dems didn’t ASK questions; they just blasted him and praised her. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, YOU ARE GUILTY BECAUSE SHE SAID SO! And...Kavanaugh can’t prove a negative!
Dr. Ford said there were others who would corroborate her story...odd thing...they would not!
What I would have loved to have seen was to have an independent prosecutor ask each one of the Democrats “When did you last beat your wife or husband? Oh, you say you never did? Can you prove you haven’t?” Better yet to the blasted male Dems. “Under penalty of law for lying, did you ever while in high school attempt to get to first base, in other words grope a female before she said ‘NO’?”
Reasonable doubt was very strong as there is NO evidence. I believe something terrible happened to her, but memories are tricky especially after a traumatic event. With that said, every woman I’ve spoken to agree a girl who has been assaulted may not report it to her parent(s) or to the law, but without a doubt she would tell her girlfriend(s) and warn them to stay away from “those drunken sex crazed party animals!”
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
Have you read Kabuki's other posts? He's not exactly against Kavanaugh and asked some pretty tough (and imo fair) questions of eYeDEF as to whether actions someone takes in high school should be considered a true representation of that person's moral character for life. I'm not sure why him saying my post was well-reasoned makes him biased, sad, or a troll.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
Yeah but that's Burk in a nutshell. Accusing other people of placing partisanship before objectivity when he's always proving he does exactly that. He's the consummate hypocrite.
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
"And I assure you Ford will recieve no reprocussions for her accusations against kavanaugh."
Wrong. There are people who will call her a liar for her accusations. You are one of them. She can't even go back to her house because of this. The ignorance of the right never ceases to amaze me.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
And there are people especially those on the left that will cradle her histrionic personality and regard ger as a hero for standing for years to come just like any other histrionic person would hope to receive.
reply
share
eYeDEF (5050)
6 years ago
If you have proof she suffers from histrionic personality disorder than please provide it and I will gladly concede there may be far more legitimacy behind calling her a liar than it appears now.
I dated a girl once with HPD. Hot as hell, but completely crazy and a compulsive liar.
But I've seen nothing to suggest she suffers from HPD. If she does I'm surprised we haven't heard about it by now given the scrutiny she's been subjected to since coming forward. You'd think we would have heard word of it from some past associates. Instead it's been nothing but support.
So unless there is some evidence, that's not you being 'impartial'. Quite the opposite, it's you unfairly projecting your own past involvement with someone else with HPD onto Dr Ford.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
If you have proof she was actually assault please provide it.
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
Kavanaugh believes she was, and he's her main opposition.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
I think he's just trying to avoid calling her an all out liar as he's trying to play the "I respect and advocate for women" card which is also most likely a farce.
reply
share
dlancer (2036)
6 years ago
That is why you cannot be impartial. Your biased brain simply does not allow it.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
Why by pointing out the kavanaugh is trying to create a narrative that he's all about women. Did you watch the hearing. I can't count how many times he mentions he has an all female law clerk staff. Thats right up their with mitt romney's binders of women.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
"Beliving a person is innocent until proven guilty is not off their rocks. And I assure you Ford will recieve no reprocussions for her accusations against kavanaugh."
Yeah thats the really sad thing about this: the bullying, rapist, self entitled, frat boy has risen so far , all the way up to the dizzy heights of the supreme court , so for Ford it was the last straw , she had to at least mention to the world what a monster the guy is , or used to be, in the knowledge that there is no real way to prove it , and it would probably come to nothing.
Innocent till proven guilty is really the only system that will work - but that means things like this (one persons word against another) just go unpunished
Its a real shame we dont have 100% lie detectors. or a time machine.
reply
share
crc32 (2584)
6 years ago
Innocent till proven guilty is really the only system that will work - but that means things like this (one persons word against another) just go unpunished.
Or better yet it means the credibility and life of a person can't be destroyed based on the unverifiable and unverified claims of another.
reply
share