Merged -- Kavanaugh/Ford Opinion and Comment Threads for 30 Sept.

[toobfreak]

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?

She is credible in that something in her past has certainly damaged her emotional and mental health.

You can't even say that much. We know nothing of this woman other than her testimony. Even the GOP's questions of her were very light. Being a woman, we have to treat her like a delicate snowflake. We know nothing of her regular life or at work to contrast her behavior against. She also just happens to be an expert in behavior science and brain function---- just the person to know exactly how to present herself to be perceived.

All I know of her is that:

1. She looks terrible for her age.
2. There are an awful lot of unanswered inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions in her story.
3. She acted like a church mouse about to break apart, yet showed not the slightest watery eye or tear of real emotion.

 

[boedicca]

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?

She is credible in that something in her past has certainly damaged her emotional and mental health.

You can't even say that much. We know nothing of this woman other than her testimony. Even the GOP's questions of her were very light. Being a woman, we have to treat her like a delicate snowflake. We know nothing of her regular life or at work to contrast her behavior against. She also just happens to be an expert in behavior science and brain function---- just the person to know exactly how to present herself to be perceived.

All I know of her is that:

1. She looks terrible for her age.
2. There are an awful lot of unanswered inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions in her story.
3. She acted like a church mouse about to break apart, yet showed not the slightest watery eye or tear of real emotion.

Yes, I can and I did. I note you did not quote the rest of my comment, so what you are criticizing is out of context.

 

[Paul Motter]

A calendar of swim meets would be good - if nothing else it should help her remember what year the so-called assault happened (she can't even remember that definitively). But it would really narrow down the date.

Here is what her testimony reeks of to me - plausible deniability. She did not want to name anyone who could actually remember being there, or the specific date, because that would make it possible for someone to refute what she said. If she gave a date someone could come along and say "I was with her that night at a movie."

Her lack of specifics is completely calculated. Also - she is reading a lot into what she saw in Matrk Judge's face, right? Maybe he was just hungover. And why would she want to go say "hi" to someone who locked her into a room and encouraged another guy to rape her?"

The article linked to above notes many things I did not, and also I note things that article left out.

Also - about the things Kavanaugh supposedly said that show possible guilt in the yearbook...

Kavanaugh did not write the yearbook - those so-called quotes would be ruled as hearsay in a legal court. They were written by the yearbook staff and attributed to Mark Judge and other people. In fact, Judge said all of the disputed phrases - not Kavanaugh. (ralph, fffffff, boof and devil's triangle) - Kavanaugh did not use any of those words himself , so you have DOUBLE HEARSAY. You have the yearbook staff saying what they heard Mark Judge say about Kavanaugh. That is not evidence, it's useless banter by teenagers.

 

[Lysistrata]

trump should have picked a better choice. Any hearing judicial confirmation, and any criminal proceeding that requires witnesses, calls for credibility determinations. I find Dr. Ford, and her situation, credible. I've got problems with Kavanaugh. His grossly partisan tantrum last week only lent credence to the perception that he is willing to march in lockstep with these "conservative" types, who very spoiled and just want the abuse the law and our Constitution to impose their will on the country. He is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

ignorance of legal fact;

ac·cu·sa·tion
ˌakyəˈzāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"

For all the board retards let's be crystal clear.

ACCUSATIONS =/= EVIDENCE

 

[Pop23]

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?

Just watched a body language expert on her testimony. She thought her to be dishonest

 

[HaShev]

She doesn't want a date, otherwise someone might prove they were out of town that day.
She doesn't want a place for the party because that can be disproved as well.
She has to give names and we saw how well that worked out for her. Even people in her own imediate family denounce her claims, it's only a few on her husbands side that are being thrusted to counter the 4 never happened statements.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?

Just watched a body language expert on her testimony. She thought her to be dishonest

I don't put any stock in hocus pocus bullshit

 

[EvilCat Breath]

She named boys that were known to pal around together. She knew them. But she was a stranger to them.

 

[Paul Motter]

Note - this video does not come up in Google or YouTube results, even with 1-million views. You need to start with DuckDuckGo

 

[Paul Motter]

Best part comes at the end...

She "doesn't remember" if she gave copies of her therapist's records to the Wash Post.

She admits the records do NOT mention Brent Kavanaugh although her testimony says it was the therapy that jogged her memory that is was Kavanaugh.

The therapist's records also say "four guys were in the room" but Ford says the therapist erroneously wrote down the wrong number. What are the chances with an important detail like that?

She was 15 and had no driver's license, but she cannot remember how she got to this party house she wanted to visit. (Conjecture here Maybe she drove herself, even though she admits to having been drinking "one beer" - no one else remembers driving her. Did she have her learner's permit? Did she like to party? (She waitressed at a club at the nearby beach known to be a party hangout).

 

[yiostheoy]

Let's review some of the inconsistencies in her commission testimony... the following is all based on her words:

She isn't sure how she got to the house, but she knew she wanted to go there because she'd heard Brent Kavanaugh and Mark Judge liked to go there and drink, it was known as a party house. But when she got there, there was no party, just a few people downstairs, yet Kavanaugh and Judge were already very drunk (she said).

She goes upstairs. There is no music or sound of conversation downstairs, yet somehow Judge & Kavanaugh sneaked up the stairs right behind her (she never mentions going into any other room), pushed her into a bedroom and locked the door. So... what exactly happened?

Did she walk into the bedroom, was she hanging out in there? She never said she heard them come up the stairs, but supposedly they were so drunk they "pinballed down the stairs" when they left - hitting the walls she said. So, her hearing was so acute she could hear them bumping into the walls from another room on their way down, but she did not hear them coming up the stairs right behind her?

Yet she clearly remembers the faces of Judge & Kavanaugh. She remembers they turned some music on very loud - what kind of music was it (that could be a key factor) - what song? No mention. They were very drunk and rowdy, but no music or conversation downstairs. A door locks, music suddenly comes on, one girl and two drunk guys are missing, they are jumping on beds and she was trying to scream. No reacton from downstairs?

So he muffled her with one hand. The way in which he covered her mouth should be a key fact she would remember, it had to be pretty effective to silence her with one hand so she could not continue screaming. What else did she do? The bed was by the wall, did she pound on the wall? Did she strike at Kavanaugh? Did she bite his lip?

No, Kavanaugh was on top of her (she testified) grinding his groin against her and trying to get her top clothes off, and Judge was "jumping on the bed?" What does that mean? Like a two year old? She does not remember them saying any words like "don't scream." Judge was just watching (and jumping on the bed?) and both were laughing.

How long did this go on? 15-seconds or 15 minutes? She doesn't say but we assume it was quick, because the second time Judge jumped on the bed Kavanaugh fell off of her. So, that was it, it was over, they laughed, turned off the music, unlocked the door and left the room. She could hear them laughing and bumping into the walls on the way downstairs. Yet she still felt she had to "escape" when they were downstairs - even though her best friends; tall PJ and Leland (lady friend) and another nameless guy she does not want to mention (?) were also down there.

She was able to get up, straighten her clothes, and sneak out of the room and run out of the house. The boys had just been upstairs jumping on beds, blasting music and locking doors for an attempted rape, then were downstairs quietly talking with some of her favorite acquaintances. A quick transformation from sadistic rapists to congenial houseguests in a matter of seconds. She frantically runs out of the house without saying a word -- and no one can corroborate her story?

Three of her best friends were in the living room but no one followed her out to ask what happened or to see if she was OK? She does not remember how she got home, (yet she only had one beer) and no one has come forward to say "we wondered where she went" or "she called us for a ride and we picked her up." She never told anyone what happened that night, yet she was so traumatized by the worst night of her life that she doesn't remember how she got home?

That's just the story of the "sexual assault." Then there were other problems.

Here is a Ph.D author of several books. The entire previous week was one delay after another. She wanted to dictate the terms of a meeting, and she was afraid to fly to Washington from California. She testified that she was never even told before that day that the entire congressional committee had previously offered to fly to her in California on the previous Monday. The first time she even heard about that was in the congressional hearing? (REALLY????)

Did her lawyers forget to tell her about that offer? Or did she just not understand what they were saying when she was told (we don't know, it never came out). Is she really afraid to fly? She said "I'll never make it to Australia" she said in all seriousness. Then 3 minutes later she admits having flown to the South Pacific and Asia several times to surf (places much farther than Washington DC).

The money? It had to be a drain on her, right? No, apparently there is already some $700,000 dollars in various GoFundMe accounts. Yet her lawyers testified under oath (penalty of perjury) to be working Pro Bono. Her lawyers; one is a self described "Trump Resistor" and the other was recommended to her by Dianne Feinstein - a ranking committee member. (conflict of interest?)

She knew an extraordinary amount about how trauma affects various glands and enzymes in the brain, yet she didn't even think about seeking counseling for what she now says is the most traumatic event in her life for some 20 years. But she did think about needing an extra door on her master bedroom for some reason that (what?) she fully understood but never mentioned until she and her husband finally got counseling in 2012 (or was it 2008?).

So, remodeling the house 20 years later she wants two front doors, and suddenly she decides to tell the first people ever "Brent Kavanaugh sexually assaulted me." - and she also says "Oh, and he might be on the Supreme Court someday" (hence, we really need that extra door.)

Do you see why I have my doubts? Tell me any inconsistencies you noticed.

And Rachell Mitchell - you did a fine job.

Fokking shill.

Iggy list.

 

[yiostheoy]

She had been to a swim meet earlier in the day and had her bathing suit on under her clothes. Does anyone put street clothes on over a wet bathing suit?

She wore the bathing suit because she is/was a skank used to getting groped at teen booze parties.

But that does not change anything.

She told the truth.

She had details.

K. lied.

But then even a lying strict constructionist who was a boozing teen who groped teenaged Catholic girls is still better than another Ginsberg on the SCOTUS.

 

[Windparadox]

`
This forum is truly thrice blessed. We have virtual cornucopia of online legal experts, constitutional experts, psychology experts, clairvoyants and now we have online forensic experts. Truly, this place is a phenomenon.
`

 

[Deno]

This should be a two-way street. I don't expect any investigation will prove anything either way, but if it can be proved she was outright lying, she should go to prison. It would make the next dingbat think and may have precluded this sham.

She lied and she should pay the price.

How are you going to prove she lied? She and other witnesses have said they don't remember some things. The only one that's said they remember everything, despite heavy drinking, is Kavanaugh. Yeah right, HE lied.

Well lets start with the fact ford said she was unaware

of the fact the committee would come to her?

This will now be investigated by the FBI…..

Did the feinstein libtards lie to her? Does ford not have a tv or a radio?

It’s clear there is a lie here………..

She said she couldn’t fly, then we find out ford is flying all over the FLUCKING WORLD…

Another lie………..

And then there’s the lying libtard Mr. Dick blumenthal…….

He quoted a Latin phrase about if you lie once you will lie again…

I tried looking up the exact phrase on the net but low and behold

I couldn’t find it anywhere…..

Go figure…………

Not addressing the lies he told? Why is that? Thought I'd forget? Clean up your language and get back to us when you've calmed down and can think straight.

What lies did he tell gargoyle?

 

[Deno]

This should be a two-way street. I don't expect any investigation will prove anything either way, but if it can be proved she was outright lying, she should go to prison. It would make the next dingbat think and may have precluded this sham.

She lied and she should pay the price.

How are you going to prove she lied? She and other witnesses have said they don't remember some things. The only one that's said they remember everything, despite heavy drinking, is Kavanaugh. Yeah right, HE lied.

Well lets start with the fact ford said she was unaware

of the fact the committee would come to her?

This will now be investigated by the FBI…..

Did the feinstein libtards lie to her? Does ford not have a tv or a radio?

It’s clear there is a lie here………..

She said she couldn’t fly, then we find out ford is flying all over the FLUCKING WORLD…

Another lie………..

And then there’s the lying libtard Mr. Dick blumenthal…….

He quoted a Latin phrase about if you lie once you will lie again…

I tried looking up the exact phrase on the net but low and behold

I couldn’t find it anywhere…..

Go figure…………

Not addressing the lies he told? Why is that? Thought I'd forget? Clean up your language and get back to us when you've calmed down and can think straight.

HEY….

You didn’t address fords lies………

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

ignorance of legal fact;

ac·cu·sa·tion
ˌakyəˈzāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"

For all the board retards let's be crystal clear.

ACCUSATIONS =/= EVIDENCE

Let's stay the fuck on topic, Gramps! Your OP was NOT concerned with a comparison of ACCUSATION vs. EVIDENCE so just drop the Straw man comparison derailing shtick. Your OP dealt solely with the subject of EVIDENCE & EVIDENCE ONLY!

Now who were to be considering the testimony of the two giving that testimony at the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th? The Senate JUDICIARY Committee. They are legally and Constitutionally charged, among other things among their duties, with matters regarding Federal courts and judges and Judicial proceedings, both civil and criminal, generally.

That's why there are so many former attorney's, former prosecutors and former judges on that committee. When that committee is taking testimony from folks before the committee in chambers or in public, they are responsible for evaluating and judging that testimony on its content given their responsibility of a thumbs up or down recommendation is their end product. That should be obvious as Hell, so keep that fact fixed in you mind.

Now recall the American Bar Association, the Professional bunch who judge the performance of Judges defines, once again to get it locked into your skull;

"Evidence - Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used by the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other." [Emphasis Added]
~~ Glossary ~~

Let's also consider the legal definition of testimony which the two figures at the center of this mess gave at the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th from the Wexford legal dictionary;
"Testimony - Oral or written evidence given by a competent witness, under oath, at trial or in an affidavit or deposition."
~~ testimony ~~

Now to the transcripts of the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th. During the opening comments by Grassly, he made reference to these very two items. Here are some snips of his introductory comments;

"Throughout this period, we did not know about the Ranking Member’s secret evidence."

"My staff made eight requests for evidence from attorneys for Ms. Ramirez and six requests for evidence from the attorney for Ms. Swetnick."

"My staff has tried to secure testimony and evidence from attorneys for both Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick."

"The testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault."

"Today’s hearing was scheduled in close consultation with Dr. Ford’s attorneys, and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing."

"My staff made repeated requests to interview Dr. Ford during the past eleven days, even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony."
~~ https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-27-18 Grassley Statement.pdf ~~

Hopefully, you understand what testimony is in a legal context, because Kavanaugh and Dr Ford both gave testimony UNDER OATH before they both sat to give their testimony, their evidence! Give up your silly, childish word play and face up to your error like the man your are!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

ignorance of legal fact;

ac·cu·sa·tion
ˌakyəˈzāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"

For all the board retards let's be crystal clear.

ACCUSATIONS =/= EVIDENCE

Let's stay the fuck on topic, Gramps! Your OP was NOT concerned with a comparison of ACCUSATION vs. EVIDENCE so just drop the Straw man comparison derailing shtick. Your OP dealt solely with the subject of EVIDENCE & EVIDENCE ONLY!

Now who were to be considering the testimony of the two giving that testimony at the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th? The Senate JUDICIARY Committee. They are legally and Constitutionally charged, among other things among their duties, with matters regarding Federal courts and judges and Judicial proceedings, both civil and criminal, generally.

That's why there are so many former attorney's, former prosecutors and former judges on that committee. When that committee is taking testimony from folks before the committee in chambers or in public, they are responsible for evaluating and judging that testimony on its content given their responsibility of a thumbs up or down recommendation is their end product. That should be obvious as Hell, so keep that fact fixed in you mind.

Now recall the American Bar Association, the Professional bunch who judge the performance of Judges defines, once again to get it locked into your skull;

"Evidence - Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used by the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other." [Emphasis Added]
~~ Glossary ~~

Let's also consider the legal definition of testimony which the two figures at the center of this mess gave at the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th from the Wexford legal dictionary;
"Testimony - Oral or written evidence given by a competent witness, under oath, at trial or in an affidavit or deposition."
~~ testimony ~~

Now to the transcripts of the hearing last Thursday on the Sept 27th. During the opening comments by Grassly, he made reference to these very two items. Here are some snips of his introductory comments;

"Throughout this period, we did not know about the Ranking Member’s secret evidence."

"My staff made eight requests for evidence from attorneys for Ms. Ramirez and six requests for evidence from the attorney for Ms. Swetnick."

"My staff has tried to secure testimony and evidence from attorneys for both Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick."

"The testimony we will hear today concerns allegations of sexual assault."

"Today’s hearing was scheduled in close consultation with Dr. Ford’s attorneys, and her testimony will be the subject of this hearing."

"My staff made repeated requests to interview Dr. Ford during the past eleven days, even volunteering to fly to California to take her testimony."
~~ https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-27-18 Grassley Statement.pdf ~~

Hopefully, you understand what testimony is in a legal context, because Kavanaugh and Dr Ford both gave testimony UNDER OATH before they both sat to give their testimony, their evidence! Give up your silly, childish word play and face up to your error like the man your are!

Stay on topic???


This is the FIRST POST. The opening post. My post...

She offered ZERO evidence. Is appearing meek all it takes?



Don't get pissed off because I made you look stupid. And have no doubt, you got schooled. Not because I'm some genius but because you are a clueless moron.

PS. Typing all that bullshit doesn't make you look intelligent. Speaking from your mind with your own thoughts is how you convey ernest and thought out posts. Any moron can plagiarize off the net

 

[konradv]

This should be a two-way street. I don't expect any investigation will prove anything either way, but if it can be proved she was outright lying, she should go to prison. It would make the next dingbat think and may have precluded this sham.

She lied and she should pay the price.

How are you going to prove she lied? She and other witnesses have said they don't remember some things. The only one that's said they remember everything, despite heavy drinking, is Kavanaugh. Yeah right, HE lied.

Well lets start with the fact ford said she was unaware

of the fact the committee would come to her?

This will now be investigated by the FBI…..

Did the feinstein libtards lie to her? Does ford not have a tv or a radio?

It’s clear there is a lie here………..

She said she couldn’t fly, then we find out ford is flying all over the FLUCKING WORLD…

Another lie………..

And then there’s the lying libtard Mr. Dick blumenthal…….

He quoted a Latin phrase about if you lie once you will lie again…

I tried looking up the exact phrase on the net but low and behold

I couldn’t find it anywhere…..

Go figure…………

Not addressing the lies he told? Why is that? Thought I'd forget? Clean up your language and get back to us when you've calmed down and can think straight.

What lies did he tell gargoyle?

Quit being such a punk. He lied about remembering everything. That was in a previous post, shortbus.

 

[Davey T]

I thought Dr. Ford's presentation was moving and credible until.....Until she said she was 100% certain it was Bret Kavanaugh. 100%. 100%? Wait. How well did she know teen-age Kavanaugh? By face? By reputation? They went to different schools thirty miles apart, hung out with different groups, had different friends. Did she know him before the party? Did they ever talk before, after? Did she meet two guys she has never known before at a party thirty miles from home and end up with both of them in a bedroom after drinking and wearing a bathing suit? Why would you do such a thing unless they dragged you in there? How does she know it was Kavanaugh if they never met before, never been friends? Did he introduce himself at the party? Why would only Kavanaugh and Judge be invited to a pool party? Were you being set up by a friend? Who? How many conversations at the party did she have with him before going into a bedroom with both boys? With all these unknowns, how could she be 100% sure from an incident 36 years ago it was a boy she never knew prior? Can you remember the face or name of anyone you met only once after thirty six years? That's when I knew.