Jump to content

Ford-Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegation


WestCanMan

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

"Everything points to him not being so?" That's not true. Ford's testimony points to him being so. His friends' testimony points to them not remembering anything. Kavanaugh's testimony points to him lying under oath about his friends' testimony, being evasive about getting blackout drunk, and feeling entitled to be a Supreme Court justice. I'd say if anything has been proven, it is that he simply doesn't have the temperament or political neutrality to even be considered. Republicans should cut their losses and give up on this belligerent drunk.

It looks to me like when you were born you must have been in your fifties already, right?  Look at all the fun and drunkenness you missed. I feel sad for you but not for me. It's chug-a-lug time. LOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jbg said:

We have a "years after the fact," utterly unsupported allegation of rape, that's likely untrue.

Agreed, 100%.

I'd actually call it a "several decades after the fact attempted rape casein which all 4 of the alleged witnesses have no knowledge of the event, the plaintiff doesn't know the year or location of the event, and her own lifelong friend never even heard about it."

If no new evidence comes in then it's nothing at all.

I'm just saying that if it somehow gains enough credibility that an unbiased person would say that it likely happened, Kavanaugh's ship is sunk. It's nowhere near that right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Agreed, 100%.

I'd actually call it a "several decades after the fact attempted rape casein which all 4 of the alleged witnesses have no knowledge of the event, the plaintiff doesn't know the year or location of the event, and her own lifelong friend never even heard about it."

If no new evidence comes in then it's nothing at all.

I'm just saying that if it somehow gains enough credibility that an unbiased person would say that it likely happened, Kavanaugh's ship is sunk. It's nowhere near that right now.

Pretty incompetent "rapist". He couldn't even get her bathing suit off. Not kidding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

"Everything points to him not being so?" That's not true. Ford's testimony points to him being so. His friends' testimony points to them not remembering anything. Kavanaugh's testimony points to him lying under oath about his friends' testimony, being evasive about getting blackout drunk, and feeling entitled to be a Supreme Court justice. I'd say if anything has been proven, it is that he simply doesn't have the temperament or political neutrality to even be considered. Republicans should cut their losses and give up on this belligerent drunk.

1)"Not remembering anything" isn't accurate. You make it sound as if they were too drunk to remember what happened at a specific place and time. There is no specific place and time, they're just supposed to remember if something like that ever happened anywhere. Their answer meant that they don't remember an event like that taking place. It's a generic answer to a non-specific question. Perfectly normal.

2)Ford's testimony made her a lot of money on the books. Who knows how she's benefitting from this in ways unbeknownst to us? For tens of millions of people across the US, it would be enough just to be involved in stopping a Trump nominee from being appointed to office. The fact that someone came out and testified against him means nothing to me. At least SOME evidence is required. There's none. She appeared credible because she cried during her testimony - maybe she was just shaken up because she knew that she was committing perjury on national TV? And if she was committing perjury, the easiest way to not get busted for it is to leave the date & location out of her story, just to make it harder to prove that she was lying. "I don't know where it was, I don't know when it happened, I don't remember who I went with, how I got there, how I got home, but I only drank one beer." LMAO, how can anyone ever prove that she is lying? They'd have to claim to know what happened at every single party that took place over the course of TWO SUMMERS! Her testimony is not credible at all in my opinion.

3)There's a difference between someone getting blackout drunk once or twice in college, and someone who does it habitually. He has hundreds of character witnesses that say he wasn't a drunk. And even if he really did get blackout drunk once or twice in college, that's not proof that he ever did it in high school. It's also quite normal for a non-drinker to get blackout drunk very quickly the first time they try booze. If you're insinuating that this somehow makes him more likely to be a rapist, or that it proves he lied under oath about "not being a frequent drunk" then you're out to lunch.

4)And he can't be characterized as a "belligerent drunk" if he was somehow involved at the start of one altercation just because one of his friends ended up in jail, so how is this testimony proof that he was generally belligerent? You haven't even heard his rebuttal to this, you're just assuming that every time someone comes forward with a new allegation it's as pure as the driven snow. Furthermore, this one single person whose testimony is up against hundreds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Pretty incompetent "rapist". He couldn't even get her bathing suit off. Not kidding.

Not to mention the fact that by her testimony, there were at least 3 people in the room involved in the "attempted rape" and one was on top of her a split second before she got away. It would be pretty hard for a girl to get away from 3 boys her own age, with serious criminal intent, even if two of them "fell off the bed". 

I also have a problem with her being pushed from behind into a room that was directly across the hall from the room she was going into. When you're pushed from behind it usually makes you go straight ahead. Remember, she only had one beer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take it from the prosecutor.  

Here's the memo of Rachael Mitchell regarding her analysis of Christine Blasey Ford allegation.

 

Quote

 

outlined in a memo Sunday to GOP senators why she would not bring criminal charges against the Supreme Court nominee. In the five-page memo, Mitchell explains what she sees as weaknesses and inconsistencies in what Christine Blasey Ford has said while describing an alleged assault by Kavanaugh at a home in suburban Maryland when they were teenagers in the early 1980s.


 

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, betsy said:

Take it from the prosecutor.  

Here's the memo of Rachael Mitchell regarding her analysis of Christine Blasey Ford allegation.

 

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

Very good summary, thanks!  I think the lawyer did better than she's given credit for.  I wonder what else would've come out had she unlimited time.  

It sounds to me like an event did happen to her, but likely happened in college...and nothing to do with Kavanaugh.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

 

It sounds to me like an event did happen to her, but likely happened in college...and nothing to do with Kavanaugh.

 

I used to think that - but now, I'm also thinking that it's very likely she's helping the Dems stop Kavanaugh.  

It's the delaying tactics she used with fear of flying that's a red flag to me now.   I didn't understand it before when it was brought up at the hearing - but reading her memo, it is suspicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, betsy said:

I used to think that - but now, I'm also thinking that it's very likely she's helping the Dems stop Kavanaugh.  

It's the delaying tactics she used with fear of flying that's a red flag to me now.   I didn't understand it before when it was brought up at the hearing - but reading her memo, it is suspicious.

Well, she's obviously an operative, I'm somewhat giving the benefit of doubt on an incident though.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

...it is that he simply doesn't have the temperament or political neutrality to even be considered. Republicans should cut their losses and give up on this belligerent drunk.

Even some conservatives are saying this.  It's all pretty cynical.  There are even some who are bending over backwards to say she's an operative, a plant etc.  Wishful thinking....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, betsy said:

Take it from the prosecutor.  

Here's the memo of Rachael Mitchell regarding her analysis of Christine Blasey Ford allegation.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

Finally - a coherent presentation of facts - not emotion, not partisanship, not bias, not vengeance - just facts.....and her summary says it all:

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Even some conservatives are saying this.  It's all pretty cynical.  There are even some who are bending over backwards to say she's an operative, a plant etc.  Wishful thinking....

She is an operative, and I wont bend over backwards to say it.  She was gonna save the country, save Roe V Wade and be a hero - and make millions in the process.    I knew that when I heard that she erased her social media pages.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

  It sounds to me like an event did happen to her, but likely happened in college...and nothing to do with Kavanaugh.

The fact that she's so emotional could just be because she's lying under oath. The threat of a perjury charge is very real.

If she's committing perjury it makes sense for her to leave out specifics like how she got there, how she got home, what day it was, what year it was, what other people were at the party aside from the boys she named, where the party occurred.... If she went into specifics then it would be far easier to prove that she was lying. It's much easier to prove it didn't happen at a certain time and place, a lot harder to prove that it didn't happen at any party, anywhere, over the course of two summers, 36 years ago. Never gonna happen. This accusation will stand regardless of her inability to find a single shred of outside evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

She is an operative, and I wont bend over backwards to say it.  She was gonna save the country, save Roe V Wade and be a hero - and make millions in the process.    I knew that when I heard that she erased her social media pages.

Well, if you're sure then you're sure.  Every hero needs a villain, and in this story Trump and Kavanagh are the heroes.  We will wait out the end of the story, I'm sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The fact that she's so emotional could just be because she's lying under oath. The threat of a perjury charge is very real.

If she's committing perjury it makes sense for her to leave out specifics like how she got there, how she got home, what day it was, what year it was, what other people were at the party aside from the boys she named, where the party occurred.... If she went into specifics then it would be far easier to prove that she was lying. It's much easier to prove it didn't happen at a certain time and place, a lot harder to prove that it didn't happen at any party, anywhere, over the course of two summers, 36 years ago. Never gonna happen. This accusation will stand regardless of her inability to find a single shred of outside evidence.

I agree completely, she made sure that she said nothing concrete - and for those exact reasons you listed.  My only point is that she may have been relaying an actual incident that at some time, some place may have happened.  She can tell a whole emotional story of a real event and simply swap the name for Kavanaugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, if you're sure then you're sure.  Every hero needs a villain, and in this story Trump and Kavanagh are the heroes.  We will wait out the end of the story, I'm sure.

It's a case of privilege, she knows that in the #metoo movement, all it takes is an allegation.  And if she is found out 100%, there will still be people who support her.  There is no downside to a false allegation, just look at Swetnick, she'll always have believes, no matter how ridiculous and destructive her claims.  If worse comes to worse, she'll just go away empty handed, no big deal.  It's about privilege...absolute power....etc.  And women have it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

She is an operative, and I wont bend over backwards to say it.  She was gonna save the country, save Roe V Wade and be a hero - and make millions in the process.    I knew that when I heard that she erased her social media pages.

You haven't even admitted you were completely wrong about whether she would testify and now you've moved on to being wrong about whether she was part of a grand partisan conspiracy?

She came forward with her allegations when Kavanaugh was shortlisted, so she was presumably fine with the other potential nominees. That timeline makes your whole theory fall apart. Oh well. Move on to the next wrong theory, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

I agree completely, she made sure that she said nothing concrete - and for those exact reasons you listed.  My only point is that she may have been relaying an actual incident that at some time, some place may have happened.  She can tell a whole emotional story of a real event and simply swap the name for Kavanaugh.

It's possible that she had a different backstory to go on. 

It's also worth remembering that she read that whole confession from a letter. Especially the part about the names of the 4 boys. She said that they were burned in her head but while she was saying their names she was reading them from a piece of paper.

They say that when you tell a lie you need to leave out specific details so that you can't get caught up on something. She kept it all simple, and read it from a script. She was emotional, but her testimony was basically factless from an investigative POV. Where does the FBI go? Who do they talk to? What year do they talk about? They have nothing to go on, at all. Even her own lifelong friends don't have anything to tell the FBI, they didn't know about it. 

It's total BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Don Jonas said:

You haven't even admitted you were completely wrong about whether she would testify and now you've moved on to being wrong about whether she was part of a grand partisan conspiracy?

She came forward with her allegations when Kavanaugh was shortlisted, so she was presumably fine with the other potential nominees. That timeline makes your whole theory fall apart. Oh well. Move on to the next wrong theory, I guess.

Her testimony was written down for her, and she didn't use any specific details in her testimony that had any chance whatsoever of being disproven. She told a story about an attempted rape, but she didn't really testify per se. 

I could say that Don Jonas's dad tried to rape me in 1982. My testimony could be a really sad, scary story. But if I don't have to name a date, location, or the names of any possible witnesses, how can Dan Jonas Sr prove that I'm lying? Did I really testify if I didn't put any actual verifiable facts in my "testimony"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Ford believers, wake up. All you have to go on is a sob story. You're judging a person guilty based on nothing more than a sob story with ZERO EVIDENCE.

Think about it. If you were in Gloria Feinstein's boots back in July, when she found out about this, and you felt like it was a credible story, what would you do? 

You'd have it investigated. Right away. In accordance with Dr Ford's wishes you would try to protect her anonymity as well as possible if you had a heart, but you would have an investigation, for sure. You'd want to get the dirt as fast as possible, because we all know that DF really didn't want this guy nominated.

As of last week they had ZERO evidence. Just a sob story.  

Dr Ford told a sob story with zero details of the evidential variety. That's not the same thing as testifying. She didn't go out on a limb, she just made vague accusations.  End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The fact that she's so emotional could just be because she's lying under oath. The threat of a perjury charge is very real.

If she's committing perjury it makes sense for her to leave out specifics like how she got there, how she got home, what day it was, what year it was, what other people were at the party aside from the boys she named, where the party occurred.... If she went into specifics then it would be far easier to prove that she was lying. It's much easier to prove it didn't happen at a certain time and place, a lot harder to prove that it didn't happen at any party, anywhere, over the course of two summers, 36 years ago. Never gonna happen. This accusation will stand regardless of her inability to find a single shred of outside evidence.

 

Don't forget too that she's an experienced psychologist - and by the looks of the achievements they've read out at the hearing, she has an amazing background in that field.  As a psychologist, she can easily emulate a rape or assault victim.  She'd know the right buttons to push to seem credible. 

I suspect she was handpicked for the "job," for that very reason.

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Dr Ford told a sob story with zero details of the evidential variety. That's not the same thing as testifying. She didn't go out on a limb, she just made vague accusations.  End of story.

 

Well, i do hope this FBI investigation will also look into her background.   They should find out if she's been using drugs or smoking weed!

She's botched naming all three people that she said were in that party - botched it, 100%!   That even included her life-long friend.   She recollects SQUAT about all crucial details - except that she drank only "one beer" that night!

 

Heck, she sounds more like she could've been hallucinating - and what she remembers is her hallucination! :lol:

 

How could you get all the people that are supposed to be in that party, wrong?  Including your life-long friend?   Though I can understand the possibility that  Mark Judge could've lied (to protect himself and Kavanaugh)........I don't see that happening with her life-long friend!   Why would her friend Leland Keyser  lie,  and refute Ford's claim?  

  Why should we believe that Ford drank only one beer just because she said so, when what she recollects about all the people she named, aren't true!  Her recollection has no credibility at all!

For all we know, she was the one drunk that night!  Or, flying' high!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, betsy said:

 

Well, i do hope this FBI investigation will also look into her background.   They should find out if she's been using drugs or smoking weed!

She's botched naming all three people that she said were in that party - botched it, 100%!   That even included her life-long friend.   She recollects SQUAT about all crucial details - except that she drank only "one beer" that night!

 

Heck, she sounds more like she could've been hallucinating - and what she remembers is her hallucination! :lol:

 

How could you get all the people that are supposed to be in that party, wrong?  Including your life-long friend?   Though I can understand the possibility that  Mark Judge could've lied (to protect himself and Kavanaugh)........I don't see that happening with her life-long friend!   Why would her friend Leland Keyser  lie,  and refute Ford's claim?  

  Why should we believe that Ford drank only one beer just because she said so, when what she recollects about all the people she named, aren't true!  Her recollection has no credibility at all!

For all we know, she was the one drunk that night!  Or, flying' high!

He lied under oath repeatedly. You can attack the victim all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact he lied under oath. He also has the temperament of a 3 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...