Merged Kavanaugh/Ford OpinionComment threads for Oct 1

[saveliberty]

Quick review of this mess.

1. Feinstein's leak of a confidential letter started the whole thing. Hard for Democrats to hide behind confidential at this point.

2. Kavanaugh's rights have been trampled upon by the left. Facing your accuser, guilty until you prove yourself innocent and so on.

3. Ford is crazy, why would she want her therapy records released?

 

[Toronado3800]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?

You are an idiot....there is nothing Ford said that has any relation to the truth or facts...she is lying. She is a left wing activist who won the Golden Ticket, she knows Kavanaugh from her high school years and now she is a #metoo millionaire...yep, actually a millionaire, her GoFundMe page passed a million dollars....and this is before her book deal, movie deal, speaking fees and academic career boost..........

There is nothing truthful in her allegations...she is lying....she should never have been given time before a committee.......

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
  
  • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Hey, the name caller strikes back lol. Nice way for a civilized fellow to start a conversation. Do you start conversations that way with fellows who are carrying guns?

do you shoot people who call you names?

nah, but I'm also not foolish enough to go around like a hot head calling people names. They may hit me or worse! Why take that 1 in 1,000 chance the other fellow IS having that bad a day to over react. If its 1 in 10,000 is it worth it to you?

To be honest I'm used to being a big fellow but back in grade school I learned even winning a fight can hurt the next day lol.

 

[saveliberty]

Because, if you actually paid attention, you would have noticed that that is a condition of you being granted a license. Didn't you look that stuff over when you got your driver's license?

More to the point, driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Toronado3800]

In America the accused get to cross examine their accuser.

Since she refuses, her allegation should be ignored.

Not....a.....court....of....law.....it's....a....job....interview.

But but but but it's a lifetime appointment to the highest Court, we need to get the FACTS. What's she hiding?

This is important and I dunno if she is telling the truth.

On a side note if you accused me of rape do your confidential conversations with your priest or therapist get made public? I can see letting my defense team run their own tests on you though.

 

[Jackson]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

No. She claims that negatively altered her life and that would support that statement. Also, we would like to know if she has a pattern of untruthfulness which would certainly alter the facts of this case.

Her attorney was quick to deny the Senators the polygraph test done by the attorneys tester. They could only get the written report. I want to get the test papers and see how a real expert interprets them.

 

[iceberg]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?

You are an idiot....there is nothing Ford said that has any relation to the truth or facts...she is lying. She is a left wing activist who won the Golden Ticket, she knows Kavanaugh from her high school years and now she is a #metoo millionaire...yep, actually a millionaire, her GoFundMe page passed a million dollars....and this is before her book deal, movie deal, speaking fees and academic career boost..........

There is nothing truthful in her allegations...she is lying....she should never have been given time before a committee.......

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
  
  • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Hey, the name caller strikes back lol. Nice way for a civilized fellow to start a conversation. Do you start conversations that way with fellows who are carrying guns?

do you shoot people who call you names?

nah, but I'm also not foolish enough to go around like a hot head calling people names. They may hit me or worse! Why take that 1 in 1,000 chance the other fellow IS having that bad a day to over react. If its 1 in 10,000 is it worth it to you?

To be honest I'm used to being a big fellow but back in grade school I learned even winning a fight can hurt the next day lol.

i was glad i was a big fellow so i'd not have to fight often. i suck at it.

as for name calling, there are a few in here like faun, hutch starsky and others on all sides who do it every single post and it's annoying as hell but i just ignore it. i'd love to have people talk as adults but when they mostly call names, you simply understand "adulthood" is not in their genetic makeup.

 

[jc456]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

How about we get her cell phone records, and get Feinsteins too, we might have to ask the Chinese for a complete copy of Feinsteins.

I'd go after the lawyers cell phones. Apparently they failed to inform Ford about the offer Grassley's team gave her.

 

[jc456]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?

First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

you need to give more than spouting amendments bubba. tell us how?

 

[Toronado3800]

Maybe there is something in there she is embarrassed about like bed wetting?

Let's let this play out. You aren't in a hurry for some reason are you?

Just because this justice to be is losing his cool?

I really don't care if he had a binge drinking problem in college. He should be adult enough to admit it. Heck, if he said he went to parties and tried to get lucky with drunk girls but just ended up drunk himself half of us could relate lol.

But yeah, are you in some kind of hurry to get this vote through? Is there a team you are rooting for?

You are an idiot....there is nothing Ford said that has any relation to the truth or facts...she is lying. She is a left wing activist who won the Golden Ticket, she knows Kavanaugh from her high school years and now she is a #metoo millionaire...yep, actually a millionaire, her GoFundMe page passed a million dollars....and this is before her book deal, movie deal, speaking fees and academic career boost..........

There is nothing truthful in her allegations...she is lying....she should never have been given time before a committee.......

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
  
  • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Hey, the name caller strikes back lol. Nice way for a civilized fellow to start a conversation. Do you start conversations that way with fellows who are carrying guns?

do you shoot people who call you names?

nah, but I'm also not foolish enough to go around like a hot head calling people names. They may hit me or worse! Why take that 1 in 1,000 chance the other fellow IS having that bad a day to over react. If its 1 in 10,000 is it worth it to you?

To be honest I'm used to being a big fellow but back in grade school I learned even winning a fight can hurt the next day lol.

i was glad i was a big fellow so i'd not have to fight often. i suck at it.

as for name calling, there are a few in here like faun, hutch starsky and others on all sides who do it every single post and it's annoying as hell but i just ignore it. i'd love to have people talk as adults but when they mostly call names, you simply understand "adulthood" is not in their genetic makeup.

You are correct. Every so often I find a poster on here which I poke. Usually they are smarter than average and make good points so it really upsets me when they fall down to "our" level or whatever.

 

[iceberg]

You are an idiot....there is nothing Ford said that has any relation to the truth or facts...she is lying. She is a left wing activist who won the Golden Ticket, she knows Kavanaugh from her high school years and now she is a #metoo millionaire...yep, actually a millionaire, her GoFundMe page passed a million dollars....and this is before her book deal, movie deal, speaking fees and academic career boost..........

There is nothing truthful in her allegations...she is lying....she should never have been given time before a committee.......

Prosecutor Who Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In Five-Page Memo

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
  
  • Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Hey, the name caller strikes back lol. Nice way for a civilized fellow to start a conversation. Do you start conversations that way with fellows who are carrying guns?

do you shoot people who call you names?

nah, but I'm also not foolish enough to go around like a hot head calling people names. They may hit me or worse! Why take that 1 in 1,000 chance the other fellow IS having that bad a day to over react. If its 1 in 10,000 is it worth it to you?

To be honest I'm used to being a big fellow but back in grade school I learned even winning a fight can hurt the next day lol.

i was glad i was a big fellow so i'd not have to fight often. i suck at it.

as for name calling, there are a few in here like faun, hutch starsky and others on all sides who do it every single post and it's annoying as hell but i just ignore it. i'd love to have people talk as adults but when they mostly call names, you simply understand "adulthood" is not in their genetic makeup.

You are correct. Every so often I find a poster on here which I poke. Usually they are smarter than average and make good points so it really upsets me when they fall down to "our" level or whatever.

we're all human. but the ones who do it 90% of the time or more, i simply move to ignore and not waste my emotional energy on their diaper changes.

 

[jc456]

Which Republicans won’t do. They don’t want people to know the truth. Look at all the classmates of Kavanaugh. Republicans want desperately to keep them quiet.

The FBI doesn't have subpoena power when conducting background checks.

This is no longer a back ground check now is it?

Yes it is. A supplemental background check.
The FBI only does 2 things.
Background checks and investigations of federal crimes.
There have been no charges filed in this case and if they were it wouldn't be federal.

so you're of the opinion that a seventeen year old boy loses all credibility cause you said so?

Where did I say that?

I'm 100% behind Kavanaugh.

It was more of me providing information that the background checks don't go back to child behavior. starts at age 18.

 

[saveliberty]

Not....a.....court....of....law.....it's....a....job....interview.

No, you are sworn in to the hearing. You need a better talking point source.

 

[jc456]

Sure you can. Ever been forced to take a Breathalyzer?

Have you ever been required to take a drug test for a job?

Ever hear of a secret court called FISA?

You can't be forced to take a breathalyzer.
You can't be forced to take a drug test.
FISA is not relevant to this.

And when you Refuse there are severe penalties.

it's called a court order for a blood test.

They confiscate your license and impound your care upon refusal of a Breathalizer.

Where is the Due Process in that?

And why are their DUI Checkpoints in a lot of states?

That also is a violation of your rights.

Because, if you actually paid attention, you would have noticed that that is a condition of you being granted a license. Didn't you look that stuff over when you got your driver's license?

when one is a citizen, one is born with the understanding that they would be treated fairly!

 

[Windparadox]

Not....a.....court....of....law.....it's....a....job....interview.

`
I don't think the hyper partisan right gets that message. They keep bringing up courtroom terminology (which most don't understand and just parrot) that is not applicable to this hearing. The FBI will not ask Ford for her therapy documents as they have nothing to do with this hearing....except in the minds of the partisan online legal experts. (the FBI is not reaching a decision or recommendation. They are just compiling the investigation directly related to Kavanaugh and reporting on it) The interview committee will not ask for those documents either, for the same reason.

And still, they persist.

 

[iceberg]

Not....a.....court....of....law.....it's....a....job....interview.

`
I don't think the hyper partisan right gets that message. They keep bringing up courtroom terminology (which most don't understand and just parrot) that is not applicable to this hearing. The FBI will not ask Ford for her therapy documents as they have nothing to do with this hearing....except in the minds of the partisan online legal experts. (the FBI is not reaching a decision or recommendation. They are just compiling the investigation directly related to Kavanaugh and reporting on it) The interview committee will not ask for those documents either, for the same reason.

And still, they persist.

well it's not like they hyper partisan left is any better. they keep using vague unsubstantiated accusations as a basis on how to run this country.

 

[OldLady]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

You're suggesting she's mentally ill now? Good one.

She may be.

That's how she has managed to attain a Ph.D., be steadily employed as a researcher and professor and has concurrently raised a family. It doesn't seem that a "mental illness" serious enough to impact her credibility would allow her to function that way.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

 

[Camp]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general,

Your subjective opinion carries no legal weight and violates a multitude of citizen rights.

What rights does having to prove your mental state violate? What right does having to prove your baseless claims violate?

First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

you need to give more than spouting amendments bubba. tell us how?

Spouting amendments? How about if you just read them.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The credibility of her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh cannot be accurately assessed without access to her therapy and psychiatric history in general, and especially much more information about the therapy sessions in which, by her own account, “she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”

If you are in the process of derailing a Supreme Court nominee based on otherwise unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct thirty-six years ago, and in that process giving the nominee a reputation as a rapist, it seems to me you have the moral obligation to either turn over all relevant evidence, or withdraw your allegation. In the absence of that evidence and any corroboration beyond her say-so, if I were a Senator I would ignore the allegations.

Rachel Mitchell Memo Lists Weaknesses in Ford Claim: READ | Heavy.com

You're suggesting she's mentally ill now? Good one.

She may be.

That's how she has managed to attain a Ph.D., be steadily employed as a researcher and professor and has concurrently raised a family. It doesn't seem that a "mental illness" serious enough to impact her credibility would allow her to function that way.

Maybe, but then there's the issue of her memory. Obtaining a Ph.D isn't that challenging...especially in psychology.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.
  • Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
  • She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
  • She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
  • Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
  • But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
  • Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

Her story has more holes than Bill Clinton's favorite female humidor